Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006 PEC APRIL - JULY ~~ Project Name: EDELWEISS Project Description: Participants: 13epar~tment of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road, Vail, Colorado 31657 tel: 970.479.2139 fax; 974.479.2452 tiveb: ~rww.vail'gov.com PEC Number: PEC060043 SETBACK ENCROACHMENTS FOR NEW FRONT ENTRY AND REAR DECK/BALCONIES OWNER KERNS, LEONARD R., JR FAMILY06/12/2006 KERNS, RITA J. TRUSTEE 990 N LAKE SHORE DR APT 120 CHICAGO IL 60611 APPLICANT LARRY DECKARD, ARCHITECT 06/12/2006 Phone: 970-569-3102 PO BOX 725 AVON CO 81620 License: 0000001796 ARCHITECT LARRY DECKARD, ARCHITECT 06/12/2006 Phone: 970-569-3102 PO BOX 725 AVON CO 81620 License: 0000001796 Project Address: 103 WILLOW PL VAIL Location: EDELWEISS CONDOS Legal Description: Lot: 4 Block: Subdivision: EDELWEISS COND. Parcel Number: 2101-082-1500-1 Comments: 80ARD/STAFF ACTION Motion By: KJESBO Second By: JEW]TT Vote: 7-0 • Conditions: Action: APPROVED Date of Approval: 07/10/2006 Cond: 8 (PLAN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of Vail staff and/or the appropriate review committee(s). Cond: 300 PEC approval shall not be not become valid for 20 days following the date of approval. Cond: CON0008262 This approval shall be contingent upon the applicant receiving Town of Vail approval of the design review application associated with this variance request. Pfannin~ and Env~r•0nmental +C~-rnmissro~n ACTI~-~l F~F~1~1 Planner: Bill Gibson PEC Fee Paid: $500.00 • • • ~~ ~~ ~~ ccpwaumrr oEbE~~SF'MEHT FINAL APPROVAL FOR AN EXEMPTION PLAT FOR A GRFA INCREASE FOR JUST LOT 6. ALREADY APPROVED FOR ENTIRE SUBDIVISION AT THE NOVEMBER 14, 2005 PEC MEETING. Project Description: Participants: • Project Name: RANALLO EXEMPTION PLAT PEC Number: PEC060039 OWNER RANALLO, PATRICK ]. & PATRIC05/17/2006 400 E NORTH AVE STREAMWOOD IL 60107 APPLICANT RAL ARCHITECTS 05/17/2006 PO BOX 1805 EDWARDS CO 81632 ARCHITECT RAL ARCHITECTS 05/17/2006 Phone: 926-4448 BOBBY LADD PO BOX 1805 EDWARDS CO 81632 License: 0000001910 Project Address: 1701 BUFFEHR CREEK RD VAIL Location: 1701 F BUFFEHR CREEK RD Legal Description: Lot: 6 Block: Subdivision: ELENI ZNEIMER SUBDIVISIO Parcel Number: 2103-122-1500-6 Comments: See Conditions BOARD/STAFF ACTION Motion By: Kjesbo Second By: ]ewitt Vote: 7-0-0 • Conditions: Planning and EnWironmentat Commisson 14CTICaN Ft}RM Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road, Vail, Colorado 81657 tel: 970.479.2139 fax: 970.479.2452 web: www.vailgov.com Action: APPROVED Date of Approval: 06/12/2006 Cond: 8 (PLAN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of Vail staff and/or the appropriate review committee(s). Cond: 300 PEC approval shall not be not become valid for 20 days following the date of approval. Cond: CON0008159 The applicant shall not record the Amended Final Plat, Efeni Zneimer Subdivision, Lot 6, A Re-subdivision of a Part of Tract A, Lion's Ridge Subdivision, Filing No. 2, prior to August 7, 2006, and only in the event that the Amended Final Plat, Eleni Zneimer Subdivision, A Re-subdivision of a Part of Tract A, Lion's Ridge Subdivision, Filing No. 2, approved by the Commission on November 14, 2005, is not recorded prior to August 7, 2006. If the Amended Final Plat, Eleni Zneimer • Subdivision, A Re-subdivision of a Part of Tract A, Lion's Ridge Subdivision, Filing No. 2, is recorded by August 7, 2006, this approval is no longer valid and in effect. Planner: Warren Campbell PEC Fee Paid: $650.00 • -+~ ~/~ ccx.uta~rr ~~~:t~~r Project Name: ROSENBACH/TAYLOR PEC Number: PEC060038 Project Description: RELOCATE PROPERTY LINE BETWEEN LOT 7 AND LOT 4 Participants: • OWNER ROSENBACH, SUSAN AND GARY 05/15/2006 Phone: 203-629 217 TACONIC RD GREENWICH CT 06831 APPLICANT K.H. WEBB ARCHITECTS PC 05/15/2006 Phone: 970-477-2990 953 S. FRONTAGE ROAD, STE 216 VAI L CO 81657 License: 0000001627 ARCHITECT K.H. WEBB ARCHITECTS PC 05/15/2006 Phone: 970-477-2990 953 S. FRONTAGE ROAD, STE 216 VAIL CO 81657 License: 0000001627 Project Address: 107 ROCKLEDGE RD VAIL Location: 107 ROCKLEDGE ROAD Planning and Envir~-nmenta~ Cl~mlt~is~€~-n ACTIN F'~J-FtM Department of Community [~evelopr~ent 75 South Frontage Road, Vail', Colorado 81657 te1:970.474.2139 fax:970,~79.2452 web: www.vail'giav.cam Legal Description: Lot: 7 Block: 7 Subdivision: VAIL VILLAGE 1ST Parcel Number: 2101-071-2001-1 Comments: BOARD/STAFF ACTION Motion By: CLEVELAND Second By: JEWITT Vote: 7-0 Conditions: • Action: APPROVED Date of Approval: 06/12/2006 (~/7/o G Cond: 8 (PLAN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of Vail staff and/or the appropriate review committee(s). Cond: 300 PEC approval shall not be not become valid for 20 days following the date of approval. Planner: Bill Gibson PEC Fee Paid: $650.00 • '~0F Y Planning and Environmental ~ommisson ACTION FORM Department of Community Development 7S South Frontage Road, Vail, Colorado 81657 tei:970.479.2139 fax:97~.479.2452 web: www.vailgov.com Project Name: LIONSHEAD CLIMBING WALL PEC Number: PEC060037 Project Description: FINAL APPROVAL TO RELOCATE THE LIONSHEAD CLIMBING WALL TO SUNDIAL PLAZA DUE TO ARRABELLE CONSTRUCTION Participants: OWNER TOWN OF VAIL 05/11/2006 C/O FINANCE DEPT 75 S FRONTAGE RD VAIL CO 81657 APPLICANT CHARLIE ALEXANDER-LMG INC. 05/11/2006 Phone: 376-3231 PO BOX 19444 AVON CO 81620 • Project Address: 616 W LIONSHEAD CR VAIL Location: SUNDIAL PLAZA Legal Description: Lot: Block: Subdivision: VAIL LIONSHEAD FIL 1 Parcel Number: 2101-063-0800-3 Comments: see conditions BOARD/STAFF ACTION Motion By: Cleveland Action: APPROVED Second By: Kjesbo Vote: 7-0-0 Date of Approval: 06/12/2006 Conditions: Cond: 8 (PLAN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of Vail staff and/or the appropriate review committee(s). Cond: 300 PEC approval shall not be not become valid for 20 days following the date of approval. Cond:CON0008145 The applicant and operator shall abide with all of the operation specifications outlined within the memorandum. Cond: CON0008146 The applicant shall replace in full any landscaping that is damaged or otherwise negatively impacted during the erection, operation, or removal of the climbing wall operation. Cond: CON0008147 The approval of this request shall be based upon approval of the associated design review request. Planner: PEC Fee Paid: $650.00 . • r ~~ ~~ ~~ li~.~ C3AY.1Jh11T'Y G~'vE~Of'MEtaT Planning and Environmental Commison ~ICTTt3N F~RNI Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road, Vail, Colorado $1657 te1:974.479.2139 fax: 970.479.2452 web: www.vailgav.com Project Name: LA BOTTEGA EXPANSION PEC Number: PEC060036 Project Description: Participants: FINAL APPRVOAL FOR AN AMENDMENT TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL 73 SQ FT OF ENCLOSED, COMMON USE SPACE TO THE BUILDING TO ACCOMODATE AN ADA COMPLIANT BATHROOM. THE APPLICATION WAS APPROVED BY STAFF AND NOT CALLED UP BY THE PEC. OWNER STAUFER COMMERCIAL LLC 100 E MEADOW DR VAIL CO 81657 APPLICANT K.H. WEBB ARCHITECTS PC 953 S. FRONTAGE ROAD, STE 216 VAIL CO 81657 License: 0000001627 • ARCHITECT K.H. WEBB ARCHITECTS PC 953 S. FRONTAGE ROAD, STE 216 VAIL CO 81657 License: 0000001627 05/08/2006 05/08/2006 Phone: 970-477-2990 05/08/2006 Phone:970-477-2990 Project Address: 100 E MEADOW DR VAIL Location: LA BOTTEGA RESTAURANT Legal Description: Lot: M Block: 5D Subdivision: VAIL VILLAGE PLAZA CONDO Parcel Number: 2101-082-5603-7 Comments: See Conditions BOARD/STAFF ACTION Motion By: Second By: Vote: Action: STAFFAPR Date of Approval: 06/12/2006 Conditions: Cond:8 (PLAN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of Vail staff and/or the appropriate review committee(s). • Cond:300 PEC approval shall not be not become valid for 20 days following the date of approval. Cond: CON0008160 That the Applicant receives final review and approval of the proposed exterior changes by the Town of Vail Design Review Board, prior to making an application for the issuance of a building permit. Cond: CON0008161 That the applicant shall submit an amended condominium plat of the Village Inn Phase V Condominiums for review and approval prior to requesting a temporary certificate of occupancy or certificate of occupancy. Planner: Warren Campbell PEC Fee Paid: $1,000.00 :J GfJC.~a1.Jt$IT 1` C~.UELJJS'R~Eh3 . Planning a~td Enviranlment~l C~omrnissr~n A-CTI+Cf ~ FQ~ a~'1 Department of Commr~nity Development 75 South Frontaa~~e EZoad, Vail, Colorado 81657 tel: 970.479.2139 fax: 9!70.479.2452 web: ~rw.vaikgov.com Project Name: GOBEC ADDITION PEC Number: PEC060034 Project Description: Participants: FINAL APPROVAL FOR A FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE (SFR) FOR A GARAGE ADDITION OWNER GOBEC, MATTHEW AND DORIS 04/25/2006 8330 CENTER ST. KIRTLAND HILLS OH 44060-7849 APPLICANT JOHN M. PERKINS ARCHITECTS, 04/25/2006 Phone: 949-9322 PO BOX 2007 AVON CO 81620 License: 0000002001 ARCHITECT JOHN M. PERKINS ARCHITECTS, 04/25/2006 Phone: 949-9322 PO BOX 2007 AVON CO 81620 License: 0000002001 Project Address: 1462 ASPEN GROVE LN VAIL Location: 1462 ASPEN GROVE LANE Legal Description: Lot: 11 Block: 2 Subdivision: LIONS RIDGE SUB. FILING Parcel Number: 2103-014-1501-3 Comments: standard conditions, no additional BOARD/STAFF ACTION Motion By: Kjesbo Second By: Dewitt Vote: 7-0 Conditions: • Action: APPROVED Date of Approval: 06/12/2006 ~~Z~a(- Cond: 8 (PLAN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of Vail staff and/or the appropriate review committee(s). Cond: 300 PEC approval shall not be not become valid for 20 days following the date of approval. Planner: Matt Gennett PEC Fee Paid: $500.00 • T~WNOF YAIL Planning and Environmental Commisson ACTIN FORM Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Raad, Yail, Colorado 81657 tel:97t1.479.2139 fax: 97U.479.2452 web: www.vailgov.corn Project Name: VFD PVT CLUB CUP Project Description: Participants: PEC Number: PEC060032 FINAL APPROVAL FOR A CUP REQUEST FOR A PRIVATE CLUB FACILITY (Skier Club) OWNER LODGE PROPERTIES INC 04/10/2006 C/0 THE LODGE AT VAIL 174 E GORE CREEK DR VAIL CO 81657 APPLICANT BAILEY & PETERSON 04/10/2006 Project Address: 174 GORE CREEK DR VAIL Location: VAILS FRONT DOOR LAND SWAP Legal Description: Lot: A Block: 5-C Subdivision: VAIL VILLAGE FILING 1 Parcel Number: 2101-082-2300-9 Comments: See conditions in file BOARD/STAFF ACTION Motion By: Kjesbo Second By: Jewitt Vote: 5-0-0 Conditions: Action: APPROVED Date of Approval: 05/08/2006 Cond: 8 (PLAN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of Vail staff and/or the appropriate review committee(s). Cond: 300 PEC approval shall not be not become valid for 20 days following the date of approval. Planner: George Ruther PEC Fee Paid: $650.00 1UWNOFYAQ. CtaM4~tUtUTY CEVEL6PMPNT Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road, Vail, Colorado 81657 tel:9?0.479.2139 fax: 970.479.2452 web: www.vailgov.corn Project Name: RITZ CARLTON AMENDMENT PEC Number: PEC060022 Project Description: Participants: RITZ CARLTON HOTEL-FINAL APPROVAL FOR A MAJOR EXTERIOR ALTERATION, AN AMENDMENT TO AN APPROVED EXTERIOR ALTERATION. OWNER VAMHC INC 03/27/2006 PO BOX 7 VAIL CO 81658 APPLICANT JAY PETERSON; BAILEY & PETER03/27/2006 108 S FRONTAGE RD W STE 208 VAIL CO 81657 • Project Address: 715 W LIONSHEAD CR VAIL Location: 728 WEST LIONSHEAD CR Legal Description: Lot: 2 Block: Subdivision: West Day Parcel Number: 2101-072-1400-1 Comments: See Conditions BOARD/STAFF ACTION Motion By: Rollie Kjesbo Action: STAFFAPR Second By: Bill Dewitt Vote: 6-0-0 (Bernhardt Opposed) Date of Approval: 05/08/2006 Conditions: Cond: 8 (PLAN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of Vail staff and/or the appropriate review committee(s). Cond: 300 PEC approval shall not be not become valid for 20 days following the date of approval. Cond: CON0008021 That the Developer submits a complete application to the Town of Vail Community • Development Department for the final review and approval of the proposed development plan by the Town of Vail Design Review Board, prior to making an application for the issuance of a building permit for any of the Ritz-Carlton Residences improvements. Cond: CON0008022 That the Developer submits a Construction Staging Plan to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for the review and approval of the proposed staging plan by Planning and Environmental Commiss€~n rACTION FORM the Town of Vail Public Works Department, prior to the issuance of a building permit for the Ritr-Carlton Residences improvements. Cond: CON0008023 That the Developer prepares aRitr-Carlton Residences Site Art in Public Places • Plan, for input and comment by the Town of Vail Art in Public Places Board, prior to the issuance of a building permit for the Ritz-Carlton Residences site improvements. Subject to the above input and comment by the Art in Public places Board, Vail Associates will determine the type and location of the art to be provided. Said Plan shall include the funding for a minimum of $100,000.00 in public art improvements to be developed in conjunction with the Ritr-Carlton Residences site. The implementation of the Plan will be reasonably incorporated by Vail Associates into the Ritz-Carlton Residences construction schedule in accordance with generally prevailing construction practices. Cond: CON0008024 That the Developer submits a complete set of civil engineered drawings of the Approved Development Plans including the required off site improvements, to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for review and approval of the drawings, prior to making application for the issuance of a building permit for the Ritr-Carlton Residences improvements. Cond: CON0008025 That the Developer provides deed-restricted employee housing that complies with the Town of Vail Employee Housing requirements (Chapter 12-13) 9 employees, and that said restrictions shall be made available for occupancy, prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy for the Ritz-Carlton Residences improvements. In addition, the deed-restrictions shall be legally executed by the Developer and duly recorded with the Eagle County Clerk & Recorder's Office, prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy for the Ritr-Carlton Residences improvements The Developer may provide required employee housing on an interim basis, not to exceed four (4) years (November 28, 2008) except that ultimately the Developer will • be required to furnish permanent facilities for the Ritr-Carlton Residences employee housing requirements. Cond: CON0008026 That the Developer shall be assessed a transportation impact fee in the amount of $5,000 per increased vehicle trip in the peak hour generated (56 trips), or $280,000, and a fee of $6,500 for the increased peak hour vehicle trips (6 trips) or $39,000, created by the amendment to add four additional dwelling units, as a result of the Ritr-Carlton Residences improvements. The total fee of $319,000 shall be paid in full by the Developer prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy or certificate of occupancy for the Ritr-Carlton Residences improvements. At the sole discretion of the Town of Vail Public Works Director, said fee may be waived in full, or part, based upon the completion of certain off-site improvements. If the improvements as shown on the plans entitled 'The Ritz-Carlton Residences (based on CDOT requirements)", dated October 21, 2005, and as approved on November 28, 2005, by the PEC are constructed and completed by the Developer, said fee shall be waived in full by the Town. Planner: Warren Campbell PEC Fee Paid: $800.00 • n ~J ~~ s~irr C~'uEL4~~AtEt~!' Planning and En~ir+Dnmental Calmmissaln ACTION Ft')RM Department of Community Development 75 South. Frontage Road, Vail, CcrEorado 81657 tel: 97U.47~.2139 fax: g7o.479.2452 web: rnrww.vailgov.com Project Name: RITZ CARLTON CUP Project Description: Participants: PEC Number: PEC060021 RITZ CARLTON HOTEL-FINAL APPROVAL FOR A CONDITIONAL USE FOR RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON THE FIRST FLOOR OWNER VAMHC INC 03/27/2006 PO BOX 7 VAIL CO 81658 APPLICANT JAY PETERSON; BAILEY & PETER03/27/2006 108 S FRONTAGE RD W STE 208 VAIL CO 81657 • Project Address: 715 W LIONSHEAD CR VAIL Location: 728 WEST LIONSHEAD CR Legal Description: Lot: 2 Block: Subdivision: West Day Parcel Number: 2101-072-1400-1 Comments: See Conditions BOARD/STAFF ACTION Motion By: Rollie Kjesbo Action: APPROVED Second By: Bill Jewitt Vote: 6-0-0 (Bernhardt Absent) Date of Approval: 05/08/2006 Conditions: Cond: 8 (PLAN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of Vail staff and/or the appropriate review committee(s). Cond: 300 PEC approval shall not be not become valid for 20 days following the date of approval. Planner: Warren Campbell PEC Fee Paid: $650.00 c: • ~i ~ii.~1 crtrr c~v~u~~€~r Planning and EnWirc~nmental Commisson ACTIClN F4~R1~1 Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road, Vail, Colorado 8155, tel: 974.4?9.2139 fax: 974.479.2452 web: www.vailgov.com Project Name: YOUNG MINOR SUB Project Description: Participants: FINAL APPROVAL FOR A MINOR SUBDIVISION PEC Number: PEC060042 OWNER YOUNG, MICHAEL D. -SENTRY 006/09/2006 Phone: 81657 1452 BUFFEHR CREEK RD VAIL CO APPLICANT YOUNG, MICHAEL D. -SENTRY 006/09/2006 Phone: 81657 1452 BUFFEHR CREEK RD VAIL CO Project Address: 1452 BUFFEHR CREEK RD VAIL Location: 1452 BUFFEHR CREEK RD Legal Description: Lot: 1 Block: Subdivision: CLIFFSIDE CJ Parcel Number: 2103-121-0202-6 Comments: See Conditions BOARD/STAFF ACTION Motion By: Rollie Kjesbo Second By: Bill Jewitt Vote: 7-0-0 Conditions: Action: STAFFAPR Date of Approval: 07/10/2006 Cond: 8 (PLAN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of Vail staff and/or the appropriate review committee(s). Cond: 300 PEC approval shall not be not become valid for 20 days following the date of approval. Cond: CON0008261 The applicant shall add a note to the Second Amended Final Plat of Lot 1, Cliffside Subdivision: A Resubdivision of Lot 1 of Cliffside and Tract "A", Cliffside, stating that a maximum of one dwelling unit is permitted on Lot 1 of the Cliffside Subdivision prior to submitting mylars for Town of Vail signature and recording. Planner: Warren Campbell PEC Fee Paid: $650.00 • ~~ c~n~~urr e~w~~~+,~cr~r P'[anning ancf En~~ronmr~ntal +Cammisson A~~'It~~l FC~F~M Project Name: COHEN RESIDENCE Project Description: Participants: SETBACK VARIANCE Department of Community Dewelopment 75 South Frontage Road, Vail, CnlQrado 81657 te1:470.47.9.2139 fax. 970.479.2452 wef}: yvww.vai[gav.co.m PEC Number: PEC060040 OWNER COHEN, DAVID M. & ELIZABETH 05/26/2006 6350 RIVERSIDE DR ATLANTA " GA 30328 APPLICANT FRITZLEN PIERCE ARCHITECTS 05/26/2006 Phone: 970-476-6342 1650 EAST VAIL VALLEY DR, #C-1 VAIL CO 81657 License: 0000001402 • ARCHITECT FRIIZLEN PIERCE ARCHITECTS 05/26/2006 Phone: 970-476-6342 1650 EAST VAIL VALLEY DR, #C-1 VAIL CO 81657 License: Cp00001402 Project Address: 265 BEAVER DAM RD VAIL Location: 265 BEAVER DAM ROAD Legal Description: Lot: 40 Block: 7 Subdivision: VAIL VILLAGE FILING 1 Parcel Number: 2101-071-1201-6 Comments: JOINT PROPERTY OWNER APPROVAL REQUIRED BOARD/STAFF ACTION Motion By: Second By: Vote: Conditions: Planner: Bill Gibson • Action: VOID Date of Approval: PEC Fee Paid: $500.00 Planning.. and Environmentat Commi~san ~~~~ G'~',M16Jl+i1TY C~EYEICiPAtck? ACTION FARM Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road, Vail, Cofr~rado 81657 tel: 970.479.2134 fax:470..474.2452 web: www.vaiigc~v.com Project Name: ERWSD WATER TANK CUP PEC Number: PEC060031 Project Description: Participants: Conditional Use Pemit request for the placement of a 1.5 million gallon above-ground water tank to replace existing 350K gallon water tank to be used for fire flow protection and support during low flow times of year (central Vail to West Vail). OWNER EAGLE RIVER WATER & SANITATI04/07/2006 846 FOREST RD VAIL CO 81657 APPLICANT EAGLE RIVER WATER & SANITATI04/07/2006 Phone: 970-476-7480 846 FOREST ROAD VAIL CO 81657 License: 362-B • CONTRACTOR EAGLE RIVER WATER & SANITATI04/07/2006 Phone: 970-476-7480 846 FOREST ROAD VAIL CO 81657 License: 362-B Project Address: 2724 SNOWBERRY DR~VAIL 2734 SNOWBERRY DR Location: Legal Description: Lot: 14 Block: 9 Subdivision: VAIL INTERMOUNTAIN DEV S Parcel Number: 2103-143-0104-4 Comments: see conditions BOARD/STAFF ACTION Motion By: Kjesbo Second By: Dewitt Vote: 6-0-0 Action: APPROVED Date of Approval: 05/08/2006 Conditions: Cond: 8 (PLAN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of Vail staff and/or the appropriate review committee(s). Cond: 300 PEC approval shall not be not become valid for 20 days following the date of approval. Cond: CON0007996 Prior to receipt of a grading permit from the Town of Vail Public Works Department, ~' a letter from the property owner of Lot 15, Block 9, Vail Intermountain Subdivision, shall be sumitted to and accepted by the Town of Vail Community Development Department that grants the applicant permission to re-grade and re-seed the areas of Lot 15 that will be disturbed as a result of the removal of the existing water tank. Cond: CON0007997 Prior to construction, a copy of the de-watering permit shall be submitted to the Town of Vail Public Works Department. ~ Cond: CON0007998 Prior to construction, a staging plan and Public Way permit shall be submitted to the Town of Vail Public Works Department. Cond: CON0007999 Prior to November 1, 2007, the applicant must mitigate the visual impacts of the above grade portions of the tank to a reasonable standard. i Cond: CON0008000 This approval shall be contingent upon the applicant receiving Town of Vail approval of the design review application and required landscape plan associated with this conditional use permit request. Planner: Elisabeth Eckel PEC Fee Paid: $650.00 • • ~nwrro~un¢ G^.~4ir'fwlE;l'Y L'E1~ELC?P~.tE!+T Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road, Vail, Colorado 81G57 tel: 97`0.479.2139 fax:97U.479.2452 web: www.vailgov.com Project Name: CRACK OF NOON EXEMPTION PLAT PEC Number: PEC060025 Project Description: Participants: Exemption plat request for approval of an amended final plat to increase building envelop by 279 square feet to accommodate void space at front of residence not currently allowed outside of platted 4500 square foot building envelope. OWNER CRACK OF NOON LP 04/03/2006 1505 RIM RD EL PASO TX 79902 ARCHITECT K.H. WEBB ARCHITECTS PC 953 S. FRONTAGE ROAD, STE 216 VAIL CO 81657 License: 0000001627 04/03/2006 Phone:970-477-2990 • APPLICANT MILLIGAN, JOHN 04/03/2006 Phone: 390-0549 416 VAIL VALLEY DR. VAIL CO 81657 Project Address: 1722 BUFFEHR CREEK RD VAIL Location: 1722 BUFFEHR CREEK RD Legal Description: Lot: 5 Block: Subdivision: Eleni Zneimer Parcel Number: 2103-122-1000-6 Comments: see finding BOARD/STAFF ACTION Motion By: Kjesbo Second By: Gunion Vote: 6-0-0 Action: DENIED Date of Approval: Conditions: Cond: 8 (PLAN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of . Vail staff and/or the appropriate review committee(s). Cond: CON0007959 This action was based upon the interpretation by the Planning and Environmental Commission that the on-grade patio to the northwest of the residence is exempt from the plat restriction requiring that it be contained within the building envelope, as long as it is filled to the minimum height clearance dictated by the Building Code Planning. and Environmental C+~mmis~~n ACTIt3(~ FE)RM as applied by the Town of Vail at time of construction. Planner: Elisabeth Eckel PEC Fee Paid: $650.00 • • • ~~ -~ra~~w o~v`~u~ertr Department of Community Development 75 South Fr©ntage Road, Vail, Colorado 81557 te1:97£1.479.2139 fax:97~.479.2452 web: www.vailgov.cvm Project Name: REISS CODE AMENDMENT PEC Number: PEC060020 Project Description: Participants: FINAL APPROVAL FOR A ZONING CODE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 12-21-14, E, 1 FORM 15 TO 20% SITE COVERAGE FOR REISDENTIAL BUILDINGS ON SITES IN EXCESS OF 30% SLOPE. OWNER HELMUT, REISS 1401 LAVENDER LN LAGUNA BEACH CA 92651 APPLICANT ISOM & ASSOCIATES PO BOX 9 EAGLE CO 81631 03/ 17/2006 03/17/2006 Phone: 328-2388 Project Address: 2672 CORTINA LN VAIL Location: 2672 CORTINA LANE • Legal Description: Lot: 8 Block: B Subdivision: VAIL RIDGE Parcel Number: 2103-142-0303-4 Comments: Approved with modifications BOARD/STAFF ACTION Motion By: Kjesbo Action: APPROVED Second By: Jewitt Vote: 5-1 (Cleveland opposed) Date of Approval: 05/08/2006 Conditions: Cond: 8 (PLAN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of Vail staff and/or the appropriate review committee(s). Planner: Matt Gennett Planning ~lnd Environmentail C~ommis~an A~CTIt)iV FC`~ItN1 PEC Fee Paid: $1,300.00 • P[anr~ng alnc~ Envronrnen#~II ~C~omrnissc~n A-TIC~N FC~~~7 ~~ ~~ Depa~~tr~-ent oaf Community Development 75 SQUth Frontage Etoad, Vail, Colorado 81657 te1:97(1.479.2139 fax:970,479.2~452 web: www.vailgav.cam Project Name: SOLIS SETBACK VARIANCE PEC Number: PEC060015 Project Description: Participants: SETBACK VARIANCE FOR SFR OWNER SOLIS, LUIS & REBECCA 03/13/2006 3981 PROMONTORY CT BOULDER CO 80304 APPLICANT MICHAEL SUMAN ARCHITECT, LLC03/13/2006 Phone: 970-471-6122 PO BOX 7760 AVON CO 81620 License: 0000001764 ARCHITECT MICHAEL SUMAN ARCHITECT, LLC03/13/2006 Phone: 970-471-6122 PO BOX 7760 • AVON CO 81620 License: 0000001764 Project Address: 2180 ALPINE DR VAIL Location: 2180 ALPINE DRIVE Legal Description: Lot: 22 Block: Subdivision: VAIL VILLAGE WEST FIL 1 Parcel Number: 2103-123-1201-7 Comments: BOARD/STAFF ACTION Motion By: Rollie Kjesbo Action: DENIED 7~~p/p(, Second By: Bill Jewitt Vote: 6-1-0 (Gunion opposed) Date of Approval: Conditions: Cond: 8 (PLAN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of Vail staff and/or the appropriate review committee(s). Cond: 300 PEC approval shall not be not become valid for 20 days following the date of approval. Planner: Matt Gennett PEC Fee Paid: $500.00 ~~ ~~ Planning and EnvirOnrnental Commissl~n ACTION FORM Department of Community Develoiament 75 Sauth Frontage Road, Vail, Colorado .81657 tel: 970.479.2139 fax: 970.479.2452 web: www.vaifgov.corrE Project Name: CAHALIN VARIANCE Project Description: Participants: PEC Number: PEC060016 Request for site coverage variance of 488 square feet to erect GRFA over currently problematic drainage area between two units. OWNER CAHALIN, JOHN K. & HELEN JO 03/13/2006 1235 E LAKE DR FT LAUDERDALE FL 33316 APPLICANT RKD ARCHITECTS 03/13/2006 Phone: 970-926-2622 PO BOX 5055 EDWARDS CO 81632 License: 0000001770 • ARCHITECT RKD ARCHITECTS 03/13/2006 Phone: 970-926-2622 PO BOX 5055 EDWARDS CO 81632 License: 0000001770 Project Address: 1816 SUNBURST DR VAIL Location: 1816 SUNBURST DR, UNIT A & B Legal Description: Lot: 1-A Block: Subdivision: VAIL VALLEY 3RD FILING Parcel Number: 2101-091-0301-3 Comments: see conditions BOARD/STAFF ACTION Motion By: Bernhardt Action: APPROVED Second By: ]ewitt Vote: 5-2-0 Cahill, Kjesbo opp Date of Approval: 04/24/2006 Conditions: Cond: 8 (PLAN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of • Vail staff and/or the appropriate review committee(s). Cond: 300 PEC approval shall not be not become valid for 20 days following the date of approval. Cond: CON0007957 This approval shall be contingent upon the applicant receiving Town of Vail approval of the design review application associated with this variance request. Cond: CON0007958 The applicant shall submit and record an amended duplex plat which vacates the duplex separation line and establishes this structure as a sinfle-family structure • prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy or certificate of occupancy being granted. Planner: Warren Campbell PEC Fee Paid: $500.00 • • ~~ ~~ ~~ 1;y.R1J".rr Q.'vCU]~'NC,ir Planning and Environmental Commisson ACTION FORM Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road, Vail, Colorado 816.57 te1:970.479.2139 fax: 970.479.2452 web: www.vailgov.corn Project Name: VFD ZONING PEC Number: PEC060014 Project Description: FINAL APPROVAL FOR A ZONING OF SKI BASE/RECREATION 2 ZONE DISTRICT TO A 5.13 ACRE PARCEL OF LAND COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS THE FRONT DOOR USFS LAND EXCHANGE PARCEL. Participants: LJ OWNER LODGE PROPERTIES INC 03/13/2006 C/0 THE LODGE AT VAIL 174 E GORE CREEK DR VAIL CO 81657 APPLICANT VAIL RESORTS DEVELOPMENT INC03/13/2006 Phone: 970-845-2547 P.O. BOX 959 AVON CO 81620 License: 0000001633 Project Address: 174 GORE CREEK DR VAIL Location: VAILS FRONT DOOR LAND SWAP Legal Description: Lot: A Block: 5-C Subdivision: VAIL VILLAGE FILING 1 Parcel Number: 2101-082-2300-9 Comments: See Ordinance No. 12, Series of 2006 BOARD/STAFF ACTION Motion By: Moffet Second By: Newbury Vote: 4-0-1 Conditions: Action: APPROVED Date of Approval: 06/06/2006 Cond: 8 (PLAN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of Vail staff and/or the appropriate review committee(s). Planner: George Ruther PEC Fee Paid: $1,300.00 • ~~ ~~ 1 Ct3411AUNIFY C£wELOPAIENT Planning and Environmental Commissa-n 14CTIC)N Ft}RNI Department of Community Development 75 Soutar Frontage Road, Vail, Colorado 81657 te1:97U.479.2139 fax: 970,479.2452 web: www.vaikgov.tom Project Name: TOV VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN PEC Number: PEC050100 Project Description: Participants: • FINAL APPROVAL FOR A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN. THIS APPLICATION WAS WITHDRAWN AS THE TOWN COUNCIL DID NOT WISH TO PROCEED FORWARD AT THIS TIME WITH AN AMENDMENT. OWNER TOWN OF VAIL 12/16/2005 C/0 FINANCE DEPT 75 S FRONTAGE RD VAIL CO 81657 APPLICANT TOWN OF VAIL 12/16/2005 C/O FINANCE DEPT 75 S FRONTAGE RD VAIL CO 81657 Project Address: 111 S FRONTAGE RD WEST VAIL Location: Legal Description: Lot: Block: Subdivision: Unplatted Parcel Number: 2101-064-0000-4 Comments: BOARD/STAFF ACTION Motion By: Action: WITHDRWN Second By: Vote: Date of Approval: Conditions: Cond: 8 (PLAN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of Vail staff and/or the appropriate review committee(s). Planner: Warren Campbell PEC Fee Paid: $1,300.00 • ~~ ~i~ 1~ COhA9t1hNTY CIEYELAFI.~ENT Planning and Environmental Cammisson ACTION Ft?RM Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road, Vail, Col+arado 81557 tel; 970.479.2139 fax: 970,479.2452 web: www.vailgav.com Project Name: TOV CSC AMENDMENT Project Description: Participants: PEC Number: PEC050101 FINAL APPROVAL FOR A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE COMMERCIAL SERVICE CENTER ZONE DISTRICT. THIS APPLICATION WAS WITHDRAWN AS THE TOWN COUNCIL DID NOT WISH TO PROCEED FORWARD AT THIS TIME WITH AN AMENDMENT. OWNER TOWN OF VAIL 12/16/2005 C/O FINANCE DEPT 75 S FRONTAGE RD VAIL CO 81657 APPLICANT TOWN OF VAIL 12/16/2005 C/0 FINANCE DEPT 75 S FRONTAGE RD VAIL CO 81657 Project Address: 111 S FRONTAGE RD WEST VAIL Location: Legal Description: Lot: Block: Subdivision: Unplatted Parcel Number: 2101-064-0000-4 Comments: BOARD/STAFF ACTION Motion By: Action: WITHDRWN Second By: Vote: Date of Approval: Conditions: Cond: 8 (PLAN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of Vail staff and/or the appropriate review committee(s). Planner: Warren Campbell PEC Fee Paid: $1,300.00 • • ~. -. ~~. ~4 ~ti •~~ i ~_~ ,` 0.~ ~ 1~ .4i~1' 4F 6AIL Project Name: Application Type: Project Description: ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION FORI`~ Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 tel: 970-479-2138 fax: 970-479-2452 web: www.vailgov.com FISCHER RESIDENCES SFPIat ADM Number: ADM060011 Parcel: 2101-122-1200-3 SINGLE FAMILY SUB. CREATING PARCELS 6A & 66 Participants: OWNER STEVE FISCHER 9 SLOPE DRIVE SHORTHILLS NJ 07078 APPLICANT JAMES WM STOVALL, P.C. PO BOX 5860 AVON CO 81620 Project Address: 4315 BIGHORN RD VAIL 06/30/2006 Phone:973-912-0160 06/30/2006 Phone: 949-4200 Location: 4346 SPRUCE WAY • Legal Description: Lot: 6 Block: 3 Subdivision: BIGHORN 3RD ADDITION Comments: BOARDJSTAFF ACTION Motion By: Action: STAFFAPR Second By: Vote: Date of Approval: 08/02/2006 Meeting Date: Conditions: Cond: 8 (PLAN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of Vail staff and/or the appropriate review committee(s). Cond: CON0008323 For zoning purposes, the lots created by this subdivision shall be treated as one lot. Planner: Bill Gibson DRB Fee Paid: $100.00 • ~-49~V~Ft'AILL'~' ADMINISTRATIVE A~,' ~ tON FORM Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 tel: 970-479-2138 fax: 970-479-2452 web: www.vailgov.com Project Name: GORE CREEK PL PLAT REVIEW Application Type: CondThPl ADM Number: ADM060010 Parcel: 2101-072-0700-2 Project Description: FINAL APPROVAL FOR ACONDO/TOWNHOUSE PLAT REVIEW Participants: OWNER VAIL CORP 06/12/2006 PO BOX 7 VAIL CO 81658 APPLICANT BAILEY & PETERSON 06/12/2006 108 S. FROTNAGE RD W. STE. 208 VAIL CO 81657 Project Address: 825 FOREST RD VAIL Location: 825 FOREST RD • Legal Description: Lot: 3 Block: Subdivision: WEST DAY SUBDIVISION Comments: See Conditions BOARD/STAFF ACTION Motion By: Action: STAFFAPR Second By: Vote: Date of Approval: 07/03/2006 Meeting Date: Conditions: Cond: 8 (PLAN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of Vail staff and/or the appropriate review committee(s). Planner: Warren Campbell DRB Fee Paid: $100.00 ,,~. .%•: i~ '4 ._~ ~~~ ~~ _~ ~4i~~'QR~'AIL ~` ADMINISTRATII/E ACTION FORM Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 tel: 970-479-2138 fax: 970-479-2452 web: www.vailgov.com Project Name: Manor Vail Expansion Plat Application Type: CondThPl ADM Number: ADM050003 Parcel: 2101-081-0200-1 Project Description: COMMON ELEMENT-CONDO PLAT REVIEW. PLAT TO Participants: OWNER MANOR VAIL CONDO. ASSOC. 04/18/2005 BARRETT, PATRICiA - FOGLEMAN, CLARENCE 3715 CAMEL GROVE COLORADO SPRINGS CO 80904 APPLICANT ROBERT S. MCCLEARY 04/18/2005 Phone: 970-476-5000 595 E. VAIL VALLEY DR. VAIL CO 81657 Project Address: 595 VAIL VALLEY DR VAIL Location: MANOR VAIL CONDOMINIUMS • Legal Description: Lot: ABC Block: Subdivision: Vail Village Filing 7 Comments: See Conditions BOARD/STAFF ACTION Motion By: Action: APPROVED Second By: Date of Approval: 06/26/2006 Vote: Meeting Date: Conditions: Cond: 8 (PLAN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of Vail staff and/or the appropriate review committee(s). Planner: Warren Campbell DRB Fee Paid: $100.OU ... , ~. '~ •''~ ~- ~~, ~. , r .~ ~~ ~ 1i ~tiF'~ti`{~~~'~~'` ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION FORM Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 tel: 970-479-2138 fax: 970-479-2452 web: www.vailgov.com Project Name: WEBS DUPLEX RESUB Application Type: DupSubPl ADM Number: ADM060008 Parcel: 2103-122-0202-3 Project Description: FINAL APPROVAL FOR A NEW DUPLEX RESUBDIVISION Participants: OWNER WEBS, JOHN R. 05/11/2006 400 S STEELE 1 DENVER CO 80209 APPLICANT DAUPHINAIS-MOSELY CONSTRUCTI05/11/2006 Phone: 970-476-8055 P.O. BOX 1515 VAIL CO 81658 License: 105-B Project Address: 1813 LIONS RIDGE LP VAIL Location: 1813 LIONSRIDGE LOOP • Legal Description: Lot: 5 Block: 3 Subdivision: LION'S RIDGE SUBDIVISION Comments: See Conditions BOARD/STAFF ACTION Motion By: Action: APPROVED Second By: Vote: Date of Approval: 05/11/2006 Meeting Date: Conditions: Cond: 8 (PLAN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of Vail staff and/or the appropriate review committee(s). Planner: Warren Campbell DRB Fee Paid: $100.00 • .. r •,. `~ ,_ 1 r q~ l ~4f11`~RYr1TL li ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION FORM Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 tel: 970-479-2138 fax: 970-479-2452 web: www.vailgov.com Project Name: MYSAN MOR]:1Z/MILLAR Application Type: DupSubPl ADM Number: ADM060006 Pa rce i : 2103-114-0100-5 Project Description.: DUPLEX SUBDIVISION PLAT Participants: OWNER MYSAN MORITZ/DIANE & MICHAEL05/05/2006 Phone: 476-8610 C/0 GREG AMSDEN 500 S. FRONTAGE ROAD, STE 112 VAIL CO 81657 APPLICANT AMS DEVELOPMENT, INC. 05/05/2006 500 S. FRONTAGE ROAD, STE 112 VAIL CO 81657 Project Address: 2179 CHAMONIX LN VAIL Location: 199 ST. MORITL WY Legal Description: Lot: 5-6- Block: Subdivision: VAIL HEIGHTS FIL 1 Comments: BOARD/STAFF ACTION Motion By: Action: APPROVED Second By: Vote: Date of Approval: 05/11/2006 Meeting Date: Conditions: Cond: 8 (PLAN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of Vail staff and/or the appropriate review committee(s). Planner: Bill Gibson DRB Fee Paid: $100.00 • .. r`.^. t 4 ~. 1`-+,••` ` _ alb •'d4f4V 17X i~1TL Project Name: Application Type: ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION FORM Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 tel: 970-479-2138 fax: 970-479-2452 web: www.vailgov.com SCHMID/HUBBARD DupSubPl ADM Number: ADM060004 Parcel : 2103-142-0200-6 Project Description: Participants: DUPLEX PLAT OWNER SCHMID, STEFAN 2447 CHAMONIX LN 13C VAI L CO 81657 APPLICANT THD COLORADO INC PO BOX 8338 AVON CO 81620 License: 280-A Project Address: 2683 CORTiNA LN VAIL • Legal Description: Lot: 7 Block: A Subdivision: VAIL RIDGE Comments: Location: BOARD/STAFF ACTION Motion By: Action: APPROVED Second By: Vote: Date of Approval: 04/08/2006 Meeting Date: Conditions: Cond: 8 (PLAN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of Vail staff and/or the appropriate review committee(s). Planner: Bill Gibson 04/04/2006 04/04/2006 Phone: (970)748-0862 DRB Fee Paid: $100.00 • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING ,. April 24, 2006 T~il~'f~F VAS PROJECT ORIENTATION -Town Council Chambers -PUBLIC WELCOME MEMBERS PRESENT Chas Bernhardt Doug Cahill Dick Cleveland Anne Gunion Bill Jewitt Rollie Kjesbo Bill Pierce MEMBERS ABSENT Site Visits: 1. Crack of Noon - 1722 Buffehr Creek Road 2. Lion's Square Lodge North - 660 West Lionshead Place 3. Cahalin Residence - 1816 Sunburst Drive Driver: George Public Hearing -Town Council Chambers • Swearing in of Anne Gunion by Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk 12:00 pm 2:00 pm 2. A request for final review of an appeal of an administrative action, pursuant to Section 12-3-3, Appeals, Vail Town Code, appealing a staff determination that an observatory is not an architectural feature allowed to extend above the building height limit, 1979 Sunburst Drive/Lot 12, Vail Valley Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PRJ05-0417) Appellant: Ned Gwathmey and Todd Kramer; Gwathmey, Pratt, Shultz Architects Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Tabled to May 8, 2006 MOTION: Pierce SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE: 6-0-0 (Gunion not sworn in) 3. A request for a final review of a variance, from Section 12-6D-9, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a site coverage variance to construct a residential addition, located at 1816 Sunburst Drive, Units A and B/Lot 1 Vail Valley Filing 3 and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0016) Applicant: John K. and Helen Jo Cahalin, represented by RKD Architects Planner: Warren Campbell /Elisabeth Reed ACTION: Approved with conditions MOTION: Bernhardt SECOND: Jewitt VOTE: 5-2-0 (Cahill &Kjesbo opposed) 1. This approval shall be contingent upon the applicant receiving Town of Vail approval of the design review application associated with this variance request. 2. The applicant shall submit and record an amended duplex plat which vacates the duplex separation line and establishes this structure as asingle-family structure prior • to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy or certificate of occupancy being granted. Page 1 Jack Snow, from RKD Architects, was available for questions. • Dick Cleveland noted that this was not a grant of special privilege and a physical hardship existed due to the drainage. Rollie Kjesbo asked for clarification of the GRFA calculations and the amount of addition being constructed. He noted his concerns about a poor architectural design justifying a site coverage variance. Bill Pierce also did not think that poor architectural design comprised justification of a variance. Ann Gunion noted that the existing structure creates a practical difficulty, which, as noted in the Town Code, justifies granting a variance. Chas Bernhardt added to Ann Gunion's comments that the existing area is already impervious. Doug Cahill asked the applicant to further explain the location of the proposed additions and noted that some existing site coverage could be removed and the request today, lessened. 4. A request for a final review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7H-7, Major Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the renovation of the Lion's Square Lodge North, located at 660 West Lionshead Place/Lot 8, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0019) Applicant: Lion's Square Lodge North Condominium Association, represented by Viele Development • Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Tabled to May 8, 2006 MOTION: Jewitt SECOND: Cleveland VOTE: 7-0-0 Bill Gibson presented the project according to the memorandum. David Viele, the applicant, introduced the project according to the design boards erected in the room. Chip Melick, the architect, described the story boards for the proposal. He included the proposal to add one Employee Housing Unit (EHU) within the northeast tower expansion. David Viele added that many assets would result form the proposal as presented. The creation of Employee Housing on-site should be viewed as an asset, as should the creation of retail space upon the property. He stated that the purpose of the worksession was to gain feedback from the Commission regarding possible up and downsides of the project as proposed. Doug Cahill asked if any setbacks were being encroached upon with the proposal. David replied that the existing building at the northeast existed in an easement. A one-story building would be replaced in the same location. A view corridor was allowed between the proposal and the existing Montaneros building, which was built directly on the northwest property line. Alex Prizer, a representative of the Montaneros Condominium owners, voiced that concerns that the Montaneros owners were dealing with. He stated that it seemed that the setbacks required by zoning were not being honored with the new proposal. He did not agree with the proposal to • erect another building structure within the northeastern easement. Further, he commented that the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan was not being honored in regard to sun/shade, view Page 2 corridors, and other similar issues. He added that there was a covenant in place that granted power to the Town regarding development issues. His hope on behalf of the homeowners was • that the application be tabled until further discussion could occur regarding the proposal. Russ Forrest encouraged the Commission to keep their attention focused on the regulations specified by the Zoning Code and not the regulations specified by private covenants. Chip Glacier, a homeowner within the Montaneros building, expressed concern with the shadowing that would occur over the pool area of the Montaneros building due to the northeast tower proposed by the Lion's Square Lodge. He clarified that the setback issue at the northwest corner occurred subsequently to the construction of Montaneros. David Viele commented that he would not feel obligated to converse with the Montaneros ownership component due to his status under letter of intent. He detailed the efforts that had been made to maintain the view corridor that currently existed for the Montaneros homeowners. Alex Prizer commented that it was not his experience for the public to speak and then have a developer rebut the public comments. He commented that simply because a certain design would be allowed under zoning regulations did not mean that it was in accordance with the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan as well. Jim Lamont, Vail Village Homeowner's Association, commented that the Master Plan was not thoroughly detailed in the memorandum. Jim asked if there was enough information for the public to decipher, from the memo, what the issues are that are at stake. Jim requested that the Staff outline as much as possible, the details of the proposal and the regulations under which it is reviewed. Mr. Lamont further requested that the adjacent property improvements be submitted • by the applicant upon a central document for Planning and Environmental Commission review. He suggested a "shared amenities" package that would work to the advantage of surrounding homeowners. Bill Pierce commented that considerably less was being built on the site than could be constructed. He added that spaces between the buildings were, indeed, important to be well- developed and accommodating to property owners, etc. He realized that views would be affected but that good steps had already been taken to separate the two towers. When one's view lies across another one's properties, there is always a problem. He commented that it seemed to be important to see how the proposal fit into its context in terms of size and volume. Anne Gunion asked about the difference between how the "intent" of the Master Plan and the "regulations" of the Master Plan are met by the project. She warned that site coverage should be treated carefully. She was pleased to see that the roof height was not as high as it could be. The proposal seemed to be a huge improvement to the existing site and structure. She would not require additional study materials other than the existing regulations in the Zoning Code and Master Plan. Chas Bernhardt commented that today's presentation was a good start. He asked if the applicant might work on an east/west passage within the site. He urged the applicant to continue to work things out with the neighbors. Dick Cleveland voiced some concerns with the public ways between buildings. He stated that the Master Plan identified the need to create more of these public ways, which this project did not propose. He commented that he would be concerned about the "intent" statement about the • proposal's conformance. He added that long discussions had occurred about setbacks, step- backs, etc., with the Arrabelle project. The maximum regulations prescribed to a site should also Page 3 not be deemed the requirements for a site (i.e. height). With all of the work going on, he did not think that any parking should remain above ground. A design should be drafted that used the . existing/proposed above grade parking areas for a different use. Bill Jewitt stated that the proposal was a huge improvement over what was currently in place. He encouraged the applicant to use the warmest possible colors and avoid continuation of the beige palette that was currently in use within the Lionshead areas. He stated that in order to approve the project, he would need a comprehensive list of the public benefits that would result from the project. He encouraged the two parties to collaborate regarding the covenant issues. He was also concerned about the easement (i.e. what is allowed). Regarding traffic, he expressed some concern about the entrance to the covered parking area, saying that it seemed like a relatively sharp turn was inevitable. He agreed that all the parking should be covered and that no more should be added. Rollie Kjesbo complimented the applicant on the improvement of the current proposal. He, too, was hesitant regarding the easement. Parking should be replaced with green space, shared-by- vote space for the neighbor, etc. Doug Cahill echoed the comments made about the improvement of this proposal. He suggested that continued attention be paid to the amount of retail space that may be eventually a valuable asset within this area. Bill Pierce commented that this would be a great opportunity to look at the two towers in a different architectural light, as the Arrabelle was designed (to look like a series of different buildings). • 5. A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a text amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendments, Vail Town Code, to allow for an amendment to Section 12-21-14, Restrictions in Specific Zones on Excessive Slopes, Vail Town Code, to increase the amount of allowable site coverage on lots with excessive slopes from 15% to 20%, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0020) Applicant: Helmut Reiss, represented by Isom & Associates Planner: Matt Gennett /Bill Gibson ACTION: Tabled to May 8, 2006 MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Jewitt VOTE: 7-0-0 Bill Gibson presented the project according to the memorandum. Steve Isom, the applicant, commented that the request before the Commission today had begun as a simple site coverage variance request initiated by an addition to a home in West Vail of 100 square feet. The applicant had been urged by the Planning Commission to pursue the route of a text amendment instead. Much discussion had occurred over the years regarding the limitation of site disturbance vs. the regulation of site coverage. Steve furthered that residences built upon steep slopes have always been limited by site coverage and thence were unable to take advantage even of the 250 addition that used to be in place for single/two-family residential sites. He recommended that the phrase "new" be placed in the development phrase recommended by Staff. Dick Cleveland commented that this was a request that is related only to a couple of sites and should not be evaluated as a text amendment for different zone districts, generally. He thought that the current regulations were effective. • Bill Jewitt commented that he was in favor last time and will likely be in favor of the request Page 4 again. He saw this as a regulation relating to hazards. He agreed with Steve's comment that the DRB was the Board that should regulate site disturbance. However, he felt that a calculable • guideline (in terms of a percentage) should be instituted to guide disturbance amounts. Rollie Kjesbo also stated his continued support of the request. He said that the 60% was a good idea. If that was a number that needed to be exceeded, it could be, privy to Design Review Board review and approval. A variance should not be needed for that type of request above 60%. Bill Pierce agreed with the other Commissioners. Anne Gunion felt that the allowable site coverage should be at least 20%. She was opposed to restricting site disturbance. She did agree to protecting natural and environmental features, which should be viewed on a lot-to-lot basis. She would prefer that disturbance be treated on a site-to-site basis. Chas Bernhardt felt that this guideline could not be applied overall, but needed to be dealt with on a site-to-site basis. Doug Cahill agreed that since disturbance was the intent of bringing the site coverage down to 15%, it should be regulated now. He felt that the natural forms of the site should be maintained as well. He preferred to not regulate disturbance but to !et the site coverage rise to 20%. Bill Jewitt commented that the DRB should be required to approve a site disturbance plan. He suggested it be stated that the Town has reasonably felt that 60% was a studied number (guideline). • Anne Gunion suggested that the intent of the regulation be placed in the text to be used by the Design Review Board. Bill Gibson clarified that for the next Commission meeting, Staff would draft text amendment language that included an intent statement, a 60% site disturbance guideline, and Design Review Board authority to approve site coverage in excess of the guideline. 6. A request for a final review of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for an amendment to an existing platted building envelope, located at 1722 Buffehr Creek Road/Lot 5, Block A, Lia Zneimer Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0025) Applicant: Crack of Noon, L.P., represented by K. H. Webb Architects Planner: Elisabeth Reed ACTION: Denied MOTION: K~esbo SECOND: Gunion VOTE: 6-0-0 (Jewitt absent) This action was based upon the interpretation by the Planning and Environmental Commission that the on-grade patio to the northwest of the residence is exempt from the plat restriction requiring that it be contained within the building envelope, as long as it is filled to the minimum height clearance dictated by the Building Code as applied by the Town of Vail at time of construction. Elisabeth Reed presented an overview of the staff memorandum. Kyle Webb, the applicant's representative, presented an overview of the request. • Commissioner Pierce asked Elisabeth to clarify which portions of the building must be located within the building envelope. Page 5 Elisabeth Reed clarified the difference between the approved plans and the proposed plans. . Rollie Kjesbo questioned amending a plat for the Zeimer Subdivision. Chas Bernhardt noted that circumstances were beyond the applicant's control and the new space is for the purpose of retaining the terrace entryway to the residence. Dick Cleveland noted that the applicant repeatedly stated they could comply with the building envelope. He was opposed to increasing the size of the envelope and wanted the applicant to ask for other exclusions that meet the intent of the restriction. Kyle Webb stated that he was agreeable to infilling this space to 18 inches in order to meet the building code requirement for clearance. Bill Jewitt recommends this be resolved by the applicant and staff. Bill Jewitt left the meeting after making his comments. Rollie Kjesbo recommended that this space be defined as a means of retaining. Doug Cahill recommended that a different style footer could have been used. Ann Gunion noted that there was no visible difference from the original approval. The difference is that a crawlspace now exists under the patio. Bill Pierce asked the applicant to clarify the structural design of the stair, to which the applicant • replied that each stair was constructed with a 17' deep footing to compensate for the poor soils in this area. 7. A request for final review of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for floodplain modifications, located at 2764, 2754, and 2695 South Frontage Road/Lots A, B, and C, Stephens Subdivision; and a request for a final review of floodplain modifications, pursuant to Chapter 14-6, Grading Standards, Vail Town Code, to allow for grading within the floodplain, located at 2764, 2754, and 2695 South Frontage Road/Lots A, B, and C, Stephens Subdivision, and 2450 South Frontage Road/Unplatted and setting forth details in regard. (PEC06-0001 and PEC06-0027) Applicant: Town of Vail, Louise Young, Brian Hoyt, Maggie Froning, Lorraine Howenstine, and Chas Bernhardt Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Amended Final Plat approved with conditions MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Pierce VOTE: 4-1-1 (Cleveland opposed, Bernhardt abstained, Jewitt absent) CONDITIONS: For zoning purposes, the allowable density calculations for Parcels A, B, and C, Stephens Subdivision shall be based upon a buildable lot size of no less than 1985 platted buildable lot sizes. ACTION: Floodplain Modification approved with conditions MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Gunion VOTE: 6-0-0 (Jewitt absent) CONDITIONS: 1. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of all applicable local, state, and federal permits and approvals. • Page 6 2. The applicant shall coordinate all grading associated with this proposal with the State of Colorado Division of Wildlife. • 3. Prior to any modification, excavation or placement of fill within the 100-year floodplain: a. All improvements/modifications shall comply with the study and letter completed by Hydrosphere Resource Consultants dated 2/14/06 and 3/29/06 respectively. b.The applicant must obtain Town of Vail Design Review Board and Building Department approval. c.The applicant must submit and obtain FEMA approval of a CLOMR-F (Conditional Letter of Map Revision based on Fill) or CLOMR (Conditional Letter of Map Revision). 4. Upon completion of the improvements/modifications within the 100-year floodplain: a. The applicant shall satisfy all conditions of the FEMA approved CLOMR-F or CLOMR. b. The applicant must submit and receive FEMA approval of a LOMR-F (Letter of Map Revision based on Fill) or LOMR (Letter of Map Revision based on Fill) . c. The applicant shall obtain Town of Vail approval of an as-built survey showing the modified 100-year and the FEMA approved floodplain line. 5. All new structures placed upon any fill improvement shall meet FEMA's criteria to be defined as not within the 100-year floodplain. All new structures shall also be a minimum of one (1.0) foot above the FEMA approved Base Flood Elevation (BFE), thus providing 1.0 foot of freeboard. • Bill Gibson made a presentation of the information provided in the staff memorandum. Tom Kassmel, Town Engineer, was available for comment, as a representative of Town of Vail Department of Public Works. Ann Gunion asked how this action would allow applicants to grade in the floodplain. Bill Gibson explained that the floodplain line on the plat would be deleted since it is incorrect. Because this is Residential Cluster zoning, allowable density is based upon buildable lot area (which exclused areas within the floodplain). Ann Gunion asked what authority PEC has to allow grading in the floodplain. Bill Gibson answered that PEC is authorized by Title 14 of the Vail Town Code and is first step in approval to grade in the floodplain, followed by FEMA approval. Tom Kassmel spoke about the Pubic Works Departments coordination with FEMA and engineering consultants. FEMA has communicated that this type of request is a common occurrence and simply a matter of processing the appropriate paperwork. Tom noted that the Town of Vail's requirements for this proposal are more restrictive than FEMA's requirements. Loraine Howenstein, co-applicant, said she sold property in Gypsum where lots within the floodplain were filled. She said that all these properties had to do was apply to FEMA for a change. She mentioned a few inches many times, but was not really sure what was going on here. • Dick Cleveland said he was concerned about increasing allowable GRFA and density for these properties, but that moving the properties out of the floodplain makes sense. He supported the Page 7 floodplain modification and the plat amendment if it wasn't used to create more buildable lot area. • Rollie Kjesbo supported the application as proposed. Bill Pierce agreed with Dick. Anne Gunion agrees with Dick. Doug Cahill said he would recommend keeping the plat note preventing additional buildable lot size. Anne asked why the applicant would want the note removed from the plat. Bill answered that it would allow for me GRFA. Luise Young, co-applicant, questioned what impact this would have on her property. Bill Gibson explained. Dick Cleveland noted that such an approval would allow for more area of the lots to be safe from flooding. Bill Gibson noted that the new floodplain line works to the advantage of Parcel A, but to the disadvantage of Parcels B and C. Bill Pierce said that there are winners and losers in this game. However, the point is to make homes safer, not bigger. • Dick Cleveland stated that the homeowners needed to be treated fairly and suggested that the least restrictive of the incorrect 1985 and the current floodplain lines should be used to calculate buildable lot area. Bill Gibson clarified that Dick's recommendation would not allow the property owners to gain additional density and GRFA by filling their lots beyond what would be allowed by the 1985 or current buildable lot sizes. Rollie Kjesbo disagreed and recommended that density and GRFA be based upon the actual buildable lot sizes (i.e. not limited to the 1985 or current conditions), but that no lot would have a net loss of density or GRFA from the 1985 conditions. 8. A request fora recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for amendments to Section 12-7H-5, Conditional Uses; Generally (On all Levels of a Building or Outside of a Building), to allow for seasonal use or structures as a conditional use in Lionshead Mixed Use I District; Section 12-7H-18, Mitigation of Development Impacts, to clarify the inclusion of employee housing as a mitigation of development impacts; Section 12-8A-3, Conditional Uses, to allow for ski runs as a conditional use of the Agricultural and Open Space District; Section 12-8C-3, Conditional Uses, to allow for ski lifts not including loading and unloading areas as a conditional use of the Natural Area Preservation District; Subsection 12-18-5B, Density Control, to clarify limitations on structures which do not conform to density controls; and Chapter 14-3, Residential Access, Driveway and Parking Standards, to clarify standards for access, driveway and parking for commercial properties; Vail Town Code, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0029) • Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Rachel Friede Page 8 • • ACTION: Tabled to May 8, 2006 MOTION: Cleveland SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE: 6-0-0 (Jewitt absent) 9. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of an amendment to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, pursuant to Section 2.8, Adoption and Amendment of the Master Plan, Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, to amend the Lionshead Study Area Boundaries and Chapter 5, Detailed Plan Recommendations, to include the study "West Lionshead" area, generally located at 646, 862, 890, 923, 934, 953, 1000, and 1031 South Frontage Road West/Lot 54 and Tract K of Glen Lyon Subdivision, Tracts C and D, Vail Village Filing 2, and several unplatted parcels (a more complete legal description is available at the Community Development Department), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0008) Applicant: Vail Resorts Development Company, Town of Vail, and Glen Lyon Office Building General Partnership Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Tabled to May 8, 2006 MOTION: Pierce SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE: 6-0-0 (Jewitt absent) 10. A request for a final review of an amendment to a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7H-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, and a final review of an amendment to a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-7H-2, Permitted and Conditional Uses; Basement or Garden Level, and 12-7H-3, Permitted and Conditional Uses; First Floor on Street Level, Vail Town Code to allow for the development of 4 additional multi-family residential dwelling units (total of 111 dwelling units), located at 728 West Lionshead Circle/Lot 2, West Day Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (Ritz-Carlton Residences)(PEC05-0021 and PEC05-0022) Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc., represented by Jay Peterson Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Tabled to May 8, 2006 MOTION: Pierce SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE: 6-0-OJewitt absent) 11. Approval of April 10, 2006 minutes ACTION: Approved MOTION: Jewitt SECOND: Kjesbo 12. Information Update 13. Adjournment MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Bernhardt VOTE: 6-0-0 (Jewitt absent) VOTE: 6-0-0 (Jewitt absent) The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24-hour notification. Please call (970) 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. • Community Development Department Published April 21, 2006, in the Vail Daily. Page 9 • PROJECT ORIENTATION -Town Council Chambers -PUBLIC WELCOME MEMBERS PRESENT Site Visits: 1. Crack of Noon - 1722 Buffehr Creek Road 2. Lion's Square Lodge North - 660 West Lionshead Place 3. 2764, 2754, 2695 South Frontage Road 4. Cahalin Residence - 1816 Sunburst Drive PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING April 24, 2006 TOW~Of"VAtI,~, MEMBERS ABSENT 12:00 pm Driver: George • Public Hearing -Town Council Chambers Swearing in of Anne Gunion by Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk 2:00 pm 2. A request for final review of an appeal of an administrative action, pursuant to Section 12-3-3, Appeals, Vail Town Code, appealing a staff determination that an observatory is not an architectural feature allowed to extend above the building height limit, 1979 Sunburst Drive/Lot 12, Vail Valley Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PRJ05-0417) Appellant: Ned Gwathmey and Todd Kramer; Gwathmey, Pratt, Shultz Architects Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 3. A request for a final review of a variance, from Section 12-6D-9, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a site coverage variance to construct a residential addition, located at 1816 Sunburst Drive, Units A and B/Lot 1 Vail Valley Filing 3 and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0016) Applicant: John K. and Helen Jo Cahalin, represented by RKD Architects Planner: Warren Campbell /Elisabeth Reed ACTION: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 4. A request for a final review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7H-7, Major Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the renovation of the Lion's Square Lodge North, located at 660 West Lionshead Place/Lot 8, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0019) Page 1 Applicant: Lion's Square Lodge North Condominium Association, represented by Viele Development Planner: Bill Gibson • ACTION: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 5. A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a text amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendments, Vail Town Code, to allow for an amendment to Section 12-21-14, Restrictions in Specific Zones on Excessive Slopes, Vail Town Code, to increase the amount of allowable site coverage on lots with excessive slopes from 15% to 20%, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0020) Applicant: Helmut Reiss, represented by Isom & Associates Planner: Matt Gennett /Bill Gibson ACTION: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 6. A request for a final review of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for an amendment to an existing platted building envelope, located at 1722 Buffehr Creek Road/Lot 5, Block A, Lia Zneimer Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0025) Applicant: Crack of Noon, L.P., represented by K. H. Webb Architects Planner: Elisabeth Reed ACTION: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 7. A request for final review of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for floodplain modifications, located at 2764, 2754, • and 2695 South Frontage Road/Lots A, B, and C, Stephens Subdivision; and a request for a final review of floodplain modifications, pursuant to Chapter 14-6, Grading Standards, Vail Town Code, to allow for grading within the floodplain, located at 2764, 2754, and 2695 South Frontage Road/Lots A, B, and C, Stephens Subdivision, and 2450 South Frontage Road/Unplatted and setting forth details in regard. (PEC06-0001 and PEC06-0027) Applicant: Town of Vail, Louise Young, Brian Hoyt, Maggie Froning, Lorraine Howenstine, and Chas Bernhardt Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 8. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for proposed text amendments to Section 12-7H-5, Conditional Uses; Generally (On all Levels of a Building or Outside of a Building), to allow for seasonal use or structures as a conditional use in Lionshead Mixed Use I District; Section 12-7H-18, Mitigation of Development Impacts, to clarify the inclusion of employee housing as a mitigation of development impacts; Section 12-8C-3, Conditional Uses, to allow for ski lifts not including loading and unloading areas as a conditional use of the Natural Area Preservation District; Subsection 12-18-5B, Density Control, to clarify limitations on structures which do not conform to density controls; and Chapter 14-3, Residential Access, Driveway and Parking Standards, to clarify standards for access, driveway and parking for commercial properties; Vail Town Code, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06- 0029) Applicant: Tawn of Vail Planner: Rachel Friede ACTION: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Page 2 9. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, • Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for Ski Base Recreation 2 zone district on a 5.13 parcel of land commonly referred to as the "Front Door USFS land exchange parcel", located at 151 Vail Lane/ (A complete legal description is available at the Community Development Department), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0014) Applicant: United States of America, by and through the Forest Service, represented by Vail Resorts Development Company Planner: George Ruther ACTION: Tabled to May 8, 2006 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 10. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of an amendment to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, pursuant to Section 2.8, Adoption and Amendment of the Master Plan, Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, to amend the Lionshead Study Area Boundaries and Chapter 5, Detailed Plan Recommendations, to include the study "West Lionshead" area, generally located at 646, 862, 890, 923, 934, 953, 1000, and 1031 South Frontage Road West/Lot 54 and Tract K of Glen Lyon Subdivision, Tracts C and D, Vail Village Filing 2, and several unplatted parcels (a more complete legal description is available at the Community Development Department), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0008) Applicant: Vail Resorts Development Company, Town of Vail, and Glen Lyon Office Building General Partnership Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Tabled to May 8, 2006 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: • 11. A request for a final review of an amendment to a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7H-7, Ex4erior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, and a final review of an amendment to a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-7H-2, Permitted and Conditional Uses; Basement or Garden Level, and 12-7H-3, Permitted and Conditional Uses; First Floor on Street Level, Vail Town Code to allow for the development of 4 additional multi-family residential dwelling units (total of 111 dwelling units), located at 728 West Lionshead Circle/Lot 2, West Day Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (Ritz-Carlton Residences)(PEC05-0021 and PEC05-0022) Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc., represented by Jay Peterson Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Tabled to May 8, 2006 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 12. Approval of April 10, 2006 minutes MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 13. Information Update 14. Adjournment MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional • information. Page 3 Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24-hour notification. Please cal{ (970) 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. • Community Development Department Published April 21, 2006, in the Vail Daily. C] Page 4 • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 24, 2006 SUBJECT: A request for final review of an appeal of an administrative action, pursuant to Section 12-3-3, Appeals, Vail Town Code, appealing a staff determination that an observatory is not an architectural feature allowed to extend above the building height limit, 1979 Sunburst Drive/Lot 12, Vail Valley Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PRJ05-0417) Appellant: Gwathmey, Pratt, Shultz Architects Planner: Bill Gibson 1. SUBJECT PROPERTY The subject property is 1979 Sunburst Drive/Lot 12, Vail Valley Filing 3. II. BACKGROUND • On April 10, 2006, the Planning and Environmental Commission members considered this appeal and were split 3-3 whether to uphold or overturn the staff determination that an observatory is not an architectural feature allowed to extend above the building height limit, 1979 Sunburst Drive. Therefore, the Commission tabled this item for further review at its April 24, 2006, public hearing. Staff has researched other recently approved architectural projections and confirmed that the towers at the Arrabelle, Marriott, Ritz Carlton, and Landmark do not contain gross residential floor area. III. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION JURISDICTION Pursuant to Sub-section 12-3-3B-1, Appeal of Administrative Actions; Authority, Vail Town Code, the Planning and Environmental Commission has the authority to hear and decide appeals from any decision, determination or interpretation by any Town of Vail administrative official with respect to the provisions, standards, and procedures of the Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code. IV. PROCEDURAL CRITERIA FOR APPEALS Pursuant to Sub-sections 12-3-3B-2 and 12-3-3B-3, Appeal of Administrative Actions; Initiation and Procedures, Vail Town Code, there are three basic criteria for an appeal: A) standing of the appellant; B) adequacy of the notice of appeal; and C) timeliness of the notice of appeal. A) Standing of the Appellant • As a representative of the property owners Samuel and Luleta Maslak, the appellant, Gwathmey, Pratt, Shultz Architects, has standing to appeal the administrative decision that an observatory is not an architectural feature allowed • to extend above the building height limit at 1979 Sunburst Drive. . B) Adeauacv of the Notice of the Appeal The application for this appeal was filed by a representative of the property owners Samuel and Luleta Maslak. The Appeals Form and the materials required for its submission have been determined to be complete by the Community Development Department. C) Timeliness of the Notice of Appeal Sub-section 12-3-3B-3, Procedures, Vail Town Code, states the following: "A written notice of appeal must be filed with the Administrator or with the department rendering the decision, determination or interpretation within twenty (20) calendar days of the decision becoming final. If the last day for filing an appeal falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or aTown-observed holiday, the last day for filing an appeal shall be extended to the next business day. The Administrator's decision shall become final at the next Planning and Environmental Commission meeting (or in the case of design related decision, the next Design Review Board meeting) following the Administrator's decision, unless the decision is called up and modified by the Board or Commission. " The applicant submitted a complete appeal application within the twenty (20) day • requirement. V. NATURE OF THE APPEAL On March 6, 2006, Gwathmey, Pratt, Schultz Architects, on behalf of Samuel and Luleta Maslak, filed an official appeals form to the Town of Vail Community Development Department. The appellant is appealing the administrative determination that an observatory proposed at 1979 Sunburst Drive/Lot 12, Vail Valley Filing 3 is not an architectural feature allowed to extend above the building height limit by the provisions of Sub-section 14-10-C6, Vail Town Code. The appellant's application and statement has been attached for reference (Attachment B). VI. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS OF THE TOWN CODE CHAPTER 12-3, ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT (IN PART) Section 12-3-3: Appeals B. Appeal of Administrative Action 1. Authority: The planning and environmental commission shall have the authority to hear and decide appeals from any decision, determination or interpretation by any town administrative official with respect to the • provisions of this title and the standards and procedures hereinafter set forth, except that appeals of any decision, determination or interpretation 2 • by any town administrative official with regard to a design guideline shall be heard by the design review board. 2. Initiation: An appeal may be initiated by an applicant, adjacent property owner, or any aggrieved or adversely affected person from any order, decision, determination or interpretation by any administrative official with respect to this title. "Aggrieved or adversely affected person" means any person who will suffer an adverse effect to an interest protected or furthered by this title. The alleged adverse interest may be shared in common with other members of the community at large, but shall exceed in degree the general interest in community good shared by all persons. The administrator shall determine the standing of an appellant. If the appellant objects to the administrator's determination of standing, the planning and environmental commission (or the design review board in the case of design guidelines) shall, at a meeting prior to hearing evidence on the appeal, make a determination as to the standing of the appellant. If the planning and environmental commission (or the design review board in the case of design guidelines) determines that the appellant does not have standing to bring an appeal, the appeal shall not be heard and the original action or determination stands. 3. Procedures: A written notice of appeal must be filed with the administrator or with the department rendering the decision, determination or interpretation within twenty (20) calendar days of the • decision becoming final. If the last day for filing an appeal falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or a town observed holiday, the last day for filing an appeal shall be extended to the next business day. The administrator's decision shall become final at the next planning and environmental commission meeting (or in the case of design related decision, the next design review board meeting) following the administrator's decision, unless the decision is called up and modified by the board or commission. Such notice shall be accompanied by the name and addresses (person's mailing and property's physical) of the appellant, applicant, property owner, and adjacent property owners (the list of property owners within a condominium project shall be satisfied by listing the addresses for the managing agent or the board of directors of the condominium association) as well as specific and articulate reasons for the appeal on forms provided by the town. The filing of such notice of appeal will require the administrative official whose decision is appealed, to forward to the planning and environmental commission (or the design review board in the case of design guidelines) at the next regularly scheduled meeting, a summary of all records concerning the subject matter of the appeal and to send written notice to the appellant, applicant, property owner, and adjacent property owners (notification within a condominium project shall be satisfied by notifying the managing agent or the board of directors of the condominium association) at least fifteen (15) calendar days prior to the hearing. A hearing shall be scheduled to be heard before the planning and environmental commission (or the design review board in the case of • design guidelines) on the appeal within thirty (30) calendar days of the appeal being filed. The planning and environmental commission (or the design review board in the case of design guidelines) may grant a 3 continuance to allow the parties additional time to obtain information. The • continuance shall be allowed for a period not to exceed an additional forty (40) calendar days. Failure to file such appeal shall constitute a waiver of any rights under this title to appeal any interpretation or determination made by an administrative official. 4. Effect Of Filing An Appeal: The filing of a notice of appeal shall stay all permit activity and any proceedings in furtherance of the action appealed unless the administrative official rendering such decision, determination or interpretation certifies in writing to the planning and environmental commission (or the design review board in the case of design guidelines) and the appellant that a stay poses an imminent peril to life or property, in which case the appeal shall not stay further permit activity and any proceedings. The commission (or board) shall review such certification and grant or deny a stay of the proceedings. Such determination shall be made at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the planning and environmental commission (or the design review board in the case of design guidelines). 5. Findings: The planning and environmental commission (or the design review board in the case of design guidelines) shall on all appeals make specific findings of fact based directly on the particular evidence presented to it. These findings of fact must support conclusions that the standards and conditions imposed by the requirements of this title have or • have not been met. 6. Fee: The town council may set a reasonable fee for filing an appeal of an administrative decision, determination or interpretation. The fee will be adopted in a fee schedule which shall be maintained in the department of community development. The fee shall be paid at the time the appeal is filed. CHAPTER 14-10, DESIGN REVIEW STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES (IN PART) C. Architectural Projections, Deck, Balconies, Steps, Bay Windows, etc: 6. Towers, spires, cupolas, chimneys, flagpoles, and similar architectural features not useable as habitable floor area may extend above the height limit a distance of not more than twenty five percent (25%) of the height limit nor more than fifteen feet (15). SECTION 209, DEFINTIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS, H, 1997 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE (IN PART) Habitable Space (Room) is space in a structure for living, sleeping, eating or cooking. Bathrooms, toilet compartments, closets, halls, storage or utility space, and similar areas, are not considered habitable space. SECTION 8202, DEFINITIONS, 2003 INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE AND • SECTION 202, DEFINITIONS, 2003 INTERNATION BUILDING CODE (1N PART) 4 • Habitable Space: A space in a building for living, sleeping, eating or cooking. Bathrooms, toilet rooms, closets, halls, storage or utility spaces and similar areas are not considered habitable spaces. VII. REQUIRED ACTION The Planning and Environmental Commission shall uphold, overturn, or modify the administrative determination that an observatory proposed at 1979 Sunburst Drive/Lot 12, Vail Valley Filing 3 is not an architectural feature allowed to extend above the building height limit by the provisions of Sub-section 14-10-C6, Vail Town Code. Sub- section 12-3-3B-5, Findings, Vail Town Code, details the requirements for action by the Planning and Environmental Commission as follows: "The Planning and Environmental Commission (or the Design Review Board in the case of design guidelines) shall on all appeals make specific findings of fact based directly on the particular evidence presented to it. These findings of fact must support conclusions that the standards and conditions imposed by the requirements of this Title have or have not been met. " VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission upholds the administrative determination that an observatory proposed at 1979 Sunburst Drive/Lot 12, Vail Valley Filing 3 is not an architectural feature allowed to • extend above the building height limit by the provisions of Sub-section 14-10-C6, Vail Town Code. Pursuant to Sub-section 12-3-3-B5, Vail Town Code, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall "on all appeals make specific findings of fact based directly on the particular evidence presented to it': In addition to any evidence presented at the public hearing, the Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission make the following findings of fact:: • The subject property is zoned Two-Family Primary/Secondary Residential District. • The building height limit within the Two-Family Primary/Secondary Residential District is 33 feet for a sloping roof and 30 feet for a flat roof. • The proposed observatory has a sloping roof. • Sub-section 14-10-C6, Vail Town Code, states that "towers, spires, cupolas, chimneys, flagpoles, and similar architectural features not useable as habitable floor area may extend above the height limit a distance of not more than twenty five percent (25%) of the height limit nor more than fifteen feet (15')': • The extension of an observatory above the building height limit is not specifically contemplated by the provisions of Sub-section 14-10-C6, Vail Town Code. • The proposed observatory is of a similar architectural design to other residential entry and stairwell towers previously constructed within the Town • of Vail. 5 • Previously constructed residential stairwell towers within the Two-Family • Primary/Secondary District have been allowed to extend above the height limit. Those portions of the stairwell tower previously approved to extend above the height limit were attic spaces deducted from the gross residential floor area calculations. Those stairwell tower portions extending above the height limit were constructed to be inaccessible from the interior of the building. • The proposed observatory is calculated as gross residential floor area (GRFA), pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 12-15, GRFA, Vail Town Code. • The provisions of Sub-section 14-10-C6, Vail Town Code, address architectural features not useable as "habitable floor area': The term "habitable floor area" is not defined by the Vail Town Code or the Town's adopted building codes (e.g. 2003 IRC and 2003 IBC). • The proposed observatory is not a "habitable space" as defined by the Town of Vail's previously and currently building codes (e.g. 1997 UBC and 2003 IRC/IBC); however, it is "habitable" in the terms of the common use of the term. • The proposed observatory is accessible through a floor access panel and ladder that connects to an interior stairwell. • When in use, the proposed observatory's roof retracts and the observatory floor area is predominantly open and unenclosed. Pursuant to Sub-section 12-3-3-B5, Vail Town Code, should the Planning and • Environmental Commission choose to uphold the administrative determination that an observatory proposed at 1979 Sunburst Drive/Lot 12, Vail Valley Filing 3 is not an architectural feature allowed to extend above the building height limit by the provisions of Sub-section 14-10-C6, Vail Town Code, the Commission must determine that the findings of fact support the following finding: 1. The Community Development Department Administrator's determination that an observatory proposed at 1979 Sunburst Drive/Lot 12, Vail Valley Filing 3 is not an architectural feature allowed to extend above the building height limit by the provisions of Sub-section 14-10-C6, Vail Town Code, has met the standards and conditions imposed by the requirements of Title 12, Zoning Regulations, and Title 14, Development Standards Handbook, Vail Town Code. IX. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Appellant's statement C. Proposed Architectural Plans • 6 C C r ®~ Attachment B • Ned Gwathmey and Todd Kramer Gwathmey, Pratt, Schultz Architects, PC 1000 South Frontage Road West Vail, CO 81657 March 2, 2006 Town of Vail Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 RE: Maslak Residence - 1979 Sunburst Drive/Lot 12, Vail Valley Filing 3 1) Provide a detailed explanation of how you are an "aggrieved or adversely affected person." By limiting the height of our observation tower to 33'-0" above finished or natural grade, we are creating many difficulties. They are as follows: •A very difficult condition to construct and waterproof. By pushing the observatory down to the adjacent roofs we are creating bathtub like a condition that cannot have affective • waterproofing. •A condition that may affect the ability of the dome to rotate during the winter months. As snow accumulates in the "bathtub", along with the freeze thaw cycles common in the Vail Valley, the operation of the dome will be severely compromised. •Poor expression of an interesting architectural feature. The Vail Design Review Board Committee agree that the dome is unique and interesting and the majority of them (4 out of 5) support our interest in raising the dome, from an aesthetic point. 2) Specify the precise nature of the appeal. Please cite specific code sections having relevance to the action being appealed. In a letter from Bill Gibson dated 1-31-06 "...the proposed observatory is defined as Gross Residential Floor Area. Additionally, the proposed observatory does not qualify as `Powers, spires, chimneys, flagpoles, and a similar architectural feature not usable as habitable floor area" as described in Chapter 14-10, Design Review Standards and Guidelines, Vail Town Code. Therefore, the proposed observatory design must be revised to comply with the building height limit of 33 feet...prescribed by Section 12-6D-7, Height, Vail Town Code." Our response: We feel that the observatory is clearly a "tower" or "a similar architectural feature." The space • cannot be heated, as the temperature change when the shutter doors are open will affect the precision of the telescope. The space is also accessed by a steep ships ladder. Because it is unheated and has difficult access we do not feel that this should be categorized as Habitable space. • The Town of Vail defines Habitable in 72-2-2: "Any area designed for sleeping, living, cooking, dining, meeting or recreation [a detached space] as applied to floor area." Bill Gibson has voiced his concern that this space may be converted into a habitable space in the future. Because this space is unheated and has poor egress, to create a sleeping, living, cooking, dining or recreation space would be very difficult and a building permit will be required for any such conversion. Thus they will be required to specifically get permission for such a change, and the Town of Vail will be able to control any major renovations. In conclusion, because the dome is not heated, does not meet egress requirements, is not fully enclosed (when the shutter doors are opened), and is not clearly defined as habitable space, this space should not be considered by the Town of Vail as habitable space. By allowing the dome to be raised 3'-0" not only will the aesthetics be improved but the operation of the dome will be greatly enhanced. C • 2 ~F ~~'Rf. ~l I}, ''R- ~'.Iry!.'-~ '~,1~c~1Y" !rk~~,.i`' •'=1=r :E` rl ~~~ BsA;~ x s p v~,S ~:C i, ~d ° T ~ "b ~~ ~ °" m ~ Attachment: C ~ .~ R ~.oq.,tn~ ~ .~~ ~n II ~II F~k$~ '• I. ~ ~ ~ I ~~I ``:z ~: I ~:~ ^ ~~ c I ~ , ~~ A I ~ I •i ~ ~._ -. _r _____.._ \ J \ / ~\ ~ .y .'. ~ ; a' ' • ~ ~~ , , ~ ~ ~4~ --_ ;~ ~~ -~ ~ ~ ~. r _ ~- o ~. I I. LEI-~ ~ -- ~ , ~•' I f, ~ ~ ,,: ~ , ~, i ~., ~,~ 1 ~;~.~ ~ ~\ 1 /~ ~ ~. .-_- 'rig. `w ,,, I ~ ~ ~ ~ u'r', i j' ~ ~4 i I 1"= ; ' ~,; ; ~'; ~~o~j l~) ~~~x ~ ~ ~~ I ~~ ~ , ~ \ i ;~ ~,J ~ , i ~_~ ~ \~~ ~ Y -- rn %- ji ~., ~: __.., O i~ \ ~~ 7D %' < ~` i ,• ~. - > ~- r- ~. z ~ ~: ~`. :, .,~ 5~------------------•--- ----------°-----•-------------~ `A Y ~, N ~_ L[ MASL~K ~~SIDENG~ <<rb r tn9~ m f~ ~~ S in~"`~I~Ff F~f'~ ia`9;7 4 C30 Iv 3 _~ ~~ ~ iy,~.~~lo, i e ~c~c SUI~IBL'RST DRIVE /LOT 12, VAIL VALLEY =°~~ ~ '~~, t $' °, ~ P 31;s;~"t~ ~/,AIL, GOLOrZADO • • • ,.,III ,~, ~ I .~ I~~ ~l ~l ., ~~--! \~ J / , \. ~~ / ~~ • ~ n v- up, ~ ~~ ;._.~;~ _.. M~SLA{~ ~:ESIDENGE , - ~o _ n< ~~~t~.;; ~.~ . ;y ~ ~zo 3 ~ ~N ~ ~~~',; ;~ Id~~i SUNBURST CRIV~ /LOT 12 \/AIL VALLEY ~F~s ~ m ~ a s ~ ' , ~i " .``E ~ . ~ /:.\ I I r./71 n:2 _lT'in < • C] ~1 U r' ~ ~y °~ ~ {~4 ~;eiii~~ ~ M,hSL~K RESIDENG~ ~o ,. o , ~) _ `° °° ~ ; ~ s•t I~~. (` Iq~q SUNBURST DRIVE /LOT 12, VAIL `JALL~Y _ `~:~ a F• ~f ~ t ~'~ p ,~ a l'~'., e ~a CS1 ~ ~ ~;~ l~}(~~-t1~~ ,' Iy("~L ~ ir." ~C~ I ~;.. F ~' ". ~.~~.+ . Ny I 1 ~1 1 1 tr 0" IJ1J ~""~~ ~ Z f7m e ~,-~c~ i 4 0l7°~0 s k S M. 7 `'aE N t • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 24, 2006 SUBJECT: A request for a final review of a variance, from Section 12-6D-9, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a site coverage variance to construct a residential addition, located at 1816 Sunburst Drive, Units A and B/Lot 1 Vail Valley Filing 3 and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0016) Applicant: John K. and Helen Jo Cahalin, represented by RKD Architects Planner: Warren Campbell I. SUMMARY The applicants, John and Helen Cahalin, represented by RKD Architects, are requesting a variance from Section 12-6D-9, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to aNow for a site coverage variance to construct a residential addition, located at 1816 Sunburst Drive, Units A and B/Lot 1 Vail Valley Filing 3. • • Based upon Staff's review of the criteria in Section VIII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends approval, with conditions, of the site coverage variance subject to the findings noted in Section IX of this memorandum. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicants, John and Helen Cahalin, represented by RKD Architects, are requesting a variance from Section 12-6D-9, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a site coverage variance to construct a 488 square foot addition to an existing duplex structure which is connected by a garage, located at 1816 Sunburst Drive, Units A and B/Lot 1 Vail Valley Filing 3. A vicinity map is attached for reference (Attachment A). The proposed addition will connect the two units of the duplex structure with a Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) addition. Both dwelling units are owned by the applicants. The proposed addition to connect the two units will increase the site coverage of the structures on the site by 488 square feet. The allowable site coverage on this lot is 3,214 square feet and the existing site coverage is 3,443 square feet which is non-conforming. The proposed addition would increase the site coverage to 3,931 square feet. The area to be enclosed by the proposed addition will connect the two dwelling units in a patio area between the units where both units shed drainage and snow and is heavily shaded. This area between the two units has been a drainage concern of the owners for several years and a variance was granted to enclose the same area on June 10, 1990, by the Planning and Environments! Commission. The applicant's proposed architectural drawings of the addition have been attached for reference (Attachment B). • III. BACKGROUND This property was annexed into the Town Of Vail by Ordinance 5, Series of 1972, which became effective on May 6, 1972. The existing duplex was constructed in 1980 with minimal changes since its completion. On June 10, 1990, this property was granted a site coverage variance to enclose the area between the two duplex units as it was found there was an a hardship created by the original design of the structure as it allowed for snow, ice, and water build-up in the space between the two structures. On June 22, 1992, the approved site coverage variance was given atwo-year extension by the Planning and Environmental Commission. The proposed addition was never constructed IV. ROLES OF REVIEWING BODIES Order of Review: Generally, variance applications will be reviewed by the Planning and Environmental Commission, and then any accompanying design review application will be reviewed by the Design Review Board. Planning and Environmental Commission: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for final approval, approval with modifications, or denial of a variance application, in accordance with Chapter 12-17, • Variances, Vail Town Code. Design Review Board: The Design Review Board has no review authority over a variance application. However, the Design Review Board is responsible for the final approval, approval with modifications, or denial of any accompanying design review application. Town Council: The Town Council has the authority to hear and decide appeals from any decision, determination, or interpretation by the Planning and Environmental Commission and/or Design Review Board. The Town Council may also call up a decision of the Planning and Environmental Commission and/or Design Review Board. Staff: The Town Staff facilitates the application review process. Staff reviews the submitted application materials for completeness and general compliance with the appropriate requirements of the Town Code. Staff also provides the Planning and Environmental Commission a memorandum containing a description and background of the application; an evaluation of the application in regard to the criteria and findings outlined by the Town Code; and a recommendation of approval, approval with modifications, or denial. V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Staff believes that the following provisions of the Vail Town Code are relevant to the • review of this proposal: 2 • TITLE 12: ZONING REGULATIONS Article 12-6D: Two-Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) District (in part) 12-6D-1: PURPOSE: The two-family primary/secondary residential district is intended to provide sites for single-family residential uses or two-family residential uses in which one unit is a larger primary residence and the second unit is a smaller caretaker apartment, together with such public facilities as may appropriately be located in the same district. The two-family primary/secondary residential district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling, commensurate with single-family and two-family occupancy, and to maintain the desirable residential qualities of such sites by establishing appropriate site development standards. 12-6D-9: SITE COVERAGE: Site coverage shall not exceed twenty percent (20%) of the total site area. Chapter 12-17: Variances (in part) • 12-17-1: Purpose: A. Reasons for Seeking Variance: In order to prevent or to lessen such practical difficulties and unnecessary physical hardships inconsistent with the objectives of this title as would result from strict or literal interpretation and enforcement, variances from certain regulations may be granted. A practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship may result from the size, shape, or dimensions of a site or the locafion of existing structures thereon; from topographic or physical conditions on the site or in the immediate vicinity; or from other physical limitations, street locations or conditions in the immediate vicinity. Cost or inconvenience to the applicant of strict or literal compliance with a regulation shall not be a reason for granting a variance. VI. SITE ANALYSIS Address: Legal Description: Zoning: Land Use Plan Designation: Current Land Use: Lot Size: 1816 Sunburst Drive Lot 1, Vail Valley Filing 3 Two-Family Primary/Secondary Residential Low Density Residential Two-Family Dwelling 16,069 sq. ft. (0.3689 acres) Statistics shown in bold are those standards under which the site is currently non- conforming and the variance is requested. Standard Allowed/Reauired Existing Proposed Setbacks (min): Front: 20 ft. 30 ft. no change Sides 15 ft. 10 ft./19.5 ft. no change Rear: 15 ft. 15 ft. no change • Height (max.): 30 ft./33 ft. 28.7 no change • Density (max): 2 dwellings 2 dwellings 1 dwelling GRFA (max): 6,639 sq. ft. 5,301.2 sq. ft. 5,789.2 sq. ft. Site coverage (max.): 3,213 sq. ft. 3,443 sq. ft. 3,931 sq. ft. (20%) (21.4%) (24.5%) Parking (min.): 4 spaces 4 enclosed 2 enclosed 4 outside 2+ outside VII. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Land Use Zonino North: Residential Special Development District No. 24 South: Open Space Natural Area Preservation East: Open Space General Use West: Open Space Natural Area Preservation VIII. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS The review criteria for a request of this nature are established by Chapter 12-16, Vail Town Code. A. Consideration of Factors Reoardina Variances: • 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Due to the location of the patio area proposed to be enclosed by the addition, staff believes approval of the variance will have no negative impact on other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The addition will not be highly visible as the new square footage is located in an area between the two existing dwelling units. The proposed addition will provide a GRFA connection between the two existing dwelling units and leave only a single dwelling unit remaining. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without a grant of special privilege. As currently constructed, two large roof areas drain onto the patio area between the two dwelling units and it is this area which is proposed to be enclosed. This situation presents drainage problems for the existing structures. The 488 square foot variance for additional site coverage would allow for the area between the two structures to be enclosed and • drainage diverted to the perimeter through channeling with a new roof, gutter, and down spouts. Staff believes that the granting of this variance 4 • request is warranted because of the unique location of the two dwelling units on the site and the area created between the two dwelling units resulting in drainage problems. It was for this reason the variance for site coverage in this area was granted on June 10, 1990. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Staff believes this proposal will not have a significant impact on the public health, safety or welfare, public facilities, utilities, or light and air in comparison to existing conditions of the site. This lot is located in a moderate hazard debris flow, possible avalanche influence zone, and high severity rockfall zones. A site specific study for the site has been prepared and the all mitigation measures will be enacted in conjunction with the proposed addition. The proposed addition, being between the two existing structures, will have little to no impact on the structure and the impacts of the geologic hazards identified above. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: • 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval, with conditions, of a request for a variance, from Section 12-6D-9, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code, • pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a site coverage variance to construct a residential addition, located at 1816 Sunburst Drive, Units A and B/Lot 1 Vail Valley Filing 3 and setting forth details in regard thereto. This • recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria in Section VIII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: The Planning and Environmental Commission approves the applicants' request for a variance from Section 12-6D-9, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a residential addition, located at 1816 Sunburst Drive/Lot 1, Vail Village Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto, subject to the following conditions: This approval shall be contingent upon the applicant receiving Town of Vail approval of the design review application associated with this variance request. 2. The applicant shall submit and record an amended duplex plat which vacates the duplex separation line and establishes this structure as a single-family structure prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy or certificate of occupancy being granted. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes . the following findings: The Planning and Environmental Commission finds: 1. The granting of this variance will not constitute a granting of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the Two-Family Primary/Secondary Residential District. 2. The granting of this variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. This variance is warranted for the following reasons: a. The strict liters! interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same district. c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. • 6 X. ATTACHMENTS • A. Vicinity Map B. Reduce architectural plans of proposal C. Public Notice • • • O O of • ~-- 0 z ~ o A ~' 0 a ~ o .~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ U ,--+ aA 00 ~ . ,~ W i ~,.' F ~ F` ~e y ~ 3~ yS . ~fl" i ~ ~A a,ia ¢ ¢~ f1 d~y~~ T, S~ ~~ I ~ e a,x ~.v~, i~ ~ 'b. [ ~. a ~~ -, ~; '~.`k ~a ell fA. > Sa f :' Sfv +" is~`. '.F ~i.~ ~ c L~~~~ «;f' ,~' =1,~ ~.. ~ z ~Y ii 3 Q} d4 ~~f t ~ ~-, ~ ~*$ `~ ir. a tl of fec ~ Y~ ly; ~ I; 7 4 ~ I~ ~V j~ ~~ 1 {{ pry ; FI Y ~r~ r F [~ ~ I ~ ,~ Flw ~ .~AW1 ~.th[ i N~ ~~:~ M ' v ~P t m~,' uA ~~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~d ~~~ ~~w~l~~ir~""'r;,°t~~~~ y,, t ~s ~~ w ~~~ w~'a Attachment: B .., 4. ~~ Y w Yr. ~ p.. o t t~ ~ u e a t~*" y~ A" FAAf~i #~I p ,2/ t pY i ~'~~~ „ ,,, v ~4~` ~" GGGd11 II ~f ~~ ('b k gyp 1 ~,. ~ s~_.}$~,~~~k ~~ w ~', ~ pi ~ y t ~' ~ ~ '""t'"'"`^"""' .~.W We ` ~ ^ ~1~ ~f 4 9 S Al 2 j,' } t ~ # Iy ~ ~ Rf S$ +w t L r t S N i gg}} pp J tp F f~pN AA I 34,.°s irc~sr egg'" t ~t~G r y~ ~ ~4 j~T~H r+ y e. ~ ~~ .a fit.: ~ g~~a~, y ~ + , t ~. day 'Pa4 ~M P e ''~~Y ~' ~"° 3 ~ ~x ,i} a r ~. d 1 ~'~f 4 F~ .l .e 3 U `'J ~aMYek6 • a r" . ~.» t M s~"s 8` ~t ~ . ~~ z+". .~ 3~a P ~~}f ~ ~~ ~., a,~, 's~ t+, s v .r q ~ y~ y » ~` " t~ x ~ e„ ~ y ~ 4 f ~ NNy~ee T M~ F ~~'~ '~~ ~ n ~ ' ~ M1 < j q 4 ~" @ Y ~ 4wy:~ t Y~t~ `k s ~ 1144k'A'? .~ ih~" ;y'~ k-~ „w .~. ll~~MM~ „~p .. '~,-s'NtpiRCY~lb fA YL a ik''eMlf +~'RJa{hF~K}b ~„'" y,. • uJ ~ :}uawyoe}}y • 6ui}}as pue `uolsinipgns ~(ea }sa/~ `Z }o-}/alo~l~ peaysuolq }saM 8ZL }e pa}eool '(s}lun 6ulllannp ~ ~ ~ }o le}o}) s}lun 6ulllannp lel}uaplsa~ ~Ilwe}-l}Inw leuol}lppe ~ }o }uawdolanap aye ~o} nnolle o} apo~ unnol Iles 'lanaq }aa~}s uo aool~ ls~ld 'sasn leuol}lpuoO pue pa}}lw~ad `£-HL-Z~ Pue 'lanaq uapaeO ~o }uawasee 'sasn leuoi}lpuo~ pue pa}}lw~ad 'Z-HL-ZI uol}oas o} }uens~nd `}iw~ad asn leuol}lpuoo e o} }uawpuawe ue }o nnalna~ leUl} a pue `apoO unnol Iles 'suol}eol}lpoW ~o suoi}e~a~ly ~oua}x~ `L-HL-ZL uol}oas o} }uensmd 'uol}era}le ~oua}xa ~ofew e o} >.uawpuawe ue }o nnalna~ leUl} e ~o} }sanba~ y }}auuaO }}eW :~auueld sa}eloossy'8 wosl ~tq pa}uasa~daa 'sslad }nwlaH :}ueo~lddy (OZ00-90~3d) 'o}a~ay} p~e6aa ul sile}ap y~o} 6ul}has PUe `%OZ o} %5 ~ woa} sadols anlssaoxa y}lnn s}ol uo a6e~anoo a}ls algennolle }o }unowe ay} asea~oui o} 'apoO unnol Iles 'sadols anlssaox~ uo sauoZ o!}loads ul suoi}ol~}sail '~~-LZ-Z6 uol}oas o} }uawpuawe ue ~o} nnolle o} 'apoO unnol Iles 's}uawpuawy `L-E-ZI, uol}oas o} }uensmd `}uawpuawe }xa} e }o nnalna~ ~eUl} e ~o} }sanba~ y uosg1O il!8 :~auueld }uawdolanaa alaln ~(q pa}uasa~da~ `uoi}eloossy wnlulwopuoO y~oN a6poq aaenbs s,uolq :}ueollddy (6600-90O~d) 'o}a~ay} pae6a~ ul slle}ap y}~o} 6ul}}as pue `0 6ulild peaysuolq I1en `~ X10018 `8 }oq/aoeld peaysuolq }saM 099 }e pa}eool 'y}~oN a6poq a~enbs s,uolq ay} }o uol}enouaa ay} ao} nnolle o} 'apoO unnol Iles 'suol}e0l}lpoW ao suol}era}I`d ~olaa}x~ aofew `L-HL-ZI uol}0as o} }uensmd 'uoi}era}le ~oua}xa ~ofew e }o nnalna~ leUl} e ao} }sanba~ y • IlagdweO ua~~eM :~auueld s}oa}ly0~y dyl~l ~(q pa}uasa~da~ `ulleyeO op ualaH pue •~{ uyop :}ue0llddy (9 t.00-90O~d) •o}a~ay} pae6aa ul sile}ap y}~o} 6ui}}as pue ~ 6uil!d ~(allen ilea ~ }oq/8 pue y s}lun `anla4 }smquns g~g~ }e pa}eool `uol}lppe lel}uaplsa~ e }0n~}suoo o} aoueuen a6eaanoo ~ ~ ~ ~~ a}ls e ~o} nnolle o} `apo~ un^ol Iles `sa0uel~en 'L ~-Z ~ ~a}dey~ o} }uensand `apoO unnol ~~~ f,~d Iles `a6e~anoO a}!S '6-49-2 L uol}0as wog} 'a0ueuen e }o nnalna~ leUl} e ~o} }sanba~ y aay}nd a6~oaO :~auueld ~(uedwoO }uawdolanaa s}~osa~ Iles ~(q pa}uasa~da~ 'a0inaas }saaod ay} y6noay} pue ~(q 'eouawy }o sa}e}s pa}lun :}ueoliddy (ti~00-90O~d) •o}away} p~e6a~ ul slle}ap y>yo} 6ul}}as pue'(}uaw}~edaQ }uawdolanaa ~(}lunwwoO ay} }e algellene sl uol}duosap le6al a}aldwoo y) /aueq Iles ~5 ~ }e pa}eool `„la0~ed a6ueyoxa puel SdSn ~ooQ }uo~d„ ay} se o} pa~~a}a~ ~(luowwoo puel }o lao~ed ~ ~ •5 e uo }0u}slp auoz Z uol}ea~oa~l ase8 1~1s ~o} nnolle o} 'apoO unnol Iles `}uawpuawy `L-O-Z L uol}oas o} }uensand 'll0uno~ un^ol Iles ay} o} uol}epuawwo0aa e ao} }sanba~ y •` :}o uol}e~aplsuoo ul '6u!Pf!n9 ledlolunW Ilea }o unnol ay} ul wd OO~Z ~e `900Z `ibZ l!~d`d uo 'apoO unnol I1en 'g-£-Z6 uol}oas y}lnn aouep~o00e ul 6uueay ollgnd e ploy Illnn Iles }o unnol ay} }o uolsslwwoO le}uawuo,~lnu~ pue 6uluueld ay} }ey} N~nIJ J.9~b~H SI ~OIlON ~olloN mend + ~~~d~~ ~V.2}3dObd ?lflOJl 1~3d~b~ ~lt/W W311 SIHl ~ __ • `~~` • .~{ps E9E ~~.§4~i !"~~~ lJ D 2 D r_ DWZ r~ - m n N C °~m ANN D~- 0 p 0' 0 m z m [1 1 ~~~ E~~ei cn ~m .o 3 r N s n O 2 N-1 p V m s ~ A H m 0 z r Sm y ' O 2 < Q 's Z ~-- - ~€ ~~ n~ Q 4 0 J M r i o D lA 0 z m: k[ N' 1~ ~`: ~~ a- ~` i• b b • Nmmx N m D N J i D 9 O mm m VI ti m D 2 i k o v o m o m m ~i D O z • • m~ o= ~i • a ~~c~~~ ~tl~~~~ • D ~. N n v S z m J m N - m bz .~ s Z y5 9~ 6 ~~a if; ~ ~~ i` I ~_~ ~,, -, 1~ ~~,- j ~ ~~l I ~-- - ~~~ ~~ ~: 3 ~~ • w ~ v~ s~ ~~ ~~. , ~a§g31 I~~~~ D I D r_ D,Z -m r . rnT ANN C °~m OpN p N D ~- 0 ~ p 0' m z m 0 ~~ Ill, ~s~~~ ~, .i F v .~ - m p r s 7 } 1 \ J ~' ` i ~' f, ~ n <n f z ~L ~' m n i r~; ~m2 ~ n Lc:: ~~ C~ ~ C7 ~~~~ ~, • w ~I ~$ n~ • • a§9~ ~~~i~ D ~ r . ~ ~ N C OZ r ~ A A N D ~ o° A 0' _.._.1. ~' ~i~'s ~~ ill 8' • ~€ ay i~ n: ~ m ~ry~71~ n I. A m Yl y~ ~~; fTl ~ Cf ' c7 ~~ v n (_t ~n ~ ru ~~ i; A in ~ aF m y O M x 02 ---- a k y z r _ m 4 r v S z i W ~ S'1<nDL~ T' Qf T_~mfA'z ~~ ~~~mC~ i~~i~ ~~~i n ~~~ e ~~` ~O ~ y ~... c=~• (~ ro n ~~ ; FJ < X ~ '~ 7 ; t;~ L~~ ~ A p o ci +. ~ t ~ t ~ ~~ ai <P (l r' g ,`~~?tUA.rt ~~ pp pil • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 24, 2006 SUBJECT: A request for a final review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7H-7, Major Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the renovation of the Lion Square Lodge North, located at 660 West Lionshead Place/Lot 8, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0019) Applicant: Lion Square Lodge North Condominium Association, represented by Vieie Development Planner: Bill Gibson I. SUMMARY The purpose of today's work session hearing with the Planning and Environmental Commission is to establish the parameters by which the proposed • Lion Square Lodge North will be reviewed and evaluated by the Planning and Environmental Commission. Additionally, today's work session hearing will allow the applicant an opportunity to present the Commission with an introduction to the major exterior alteration application for the proposed Lion Square Lodge North renovation. The desired outcomes of this hearing are as follows: • For the Commission to understand how the proposed renovation to the Lion Square Lodge North is regulated by the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan; and • For the Commission to understand how the proposed renovation to the Lion Square Lodge North is regulated by the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District; and • For the Commission to understand the general elements of the applicant's renovation proposal. • For the Commission to provide the applicant with initial feedback on the proposed bulk, mass, height, setbacks, architectural style, parking and circulation, compatibility with the neighborhood, off-set of development impacts, etc. The Commission is not being asked to take any formal action on this application at this time. As such, staff is not providing a formal recommendation at this time. The Planning and Environmental Commission will be asked to provide initial feedback to the applicant regarding the proposal. Staff and the applicant request that the Planning and Environmental Commission table the applicant's request • for further review at the Commission's May 8, 2006, public hearing. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST • The applicant is has submitted a Major Exterior Alteration application to allow for the construction of 9 new dwelling units, 47 new structured and surface parking spaces, and a significant re-face of the existing Lion Square Lodge North building located 660 West Lionshead Place. A vicinity map identifying the location of the development site has been attached for reference (Attachment A). Lion Square Lodge North is located within the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan area and within the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 Zone District. The purpose of this work session is to provide the Planning and Environmental Commission with information from the Town's regulatory documents addressing how the proposed Lion Square Lodge North renovation will be reviewed. Please refer to Section V of this memorandum. Additionally, this work session will provide the applicant an opportunity to introduce the Lion Square Lodge renovation proposal to the Commission and the Commission to provide initial feedback to the applicant. The applicant's preliminary zoning analysis (Attachment B), the applicant's preliminary master plan analysis (Attachment C), and proposed architectural plans (Attachment D) have been attached for reference. A letter from an adjacent property owner has also been attached (Attachment F). The attached letter makes reference to a private sales agreement between • Montaneros and Lion Square Lodge North. Please be aware that the Town of Vail has no legal authority or obligation to interpret, mediate, enforce, etc. any private agreement, contract, covenant, etc. The Planning and Environmental Commission may only review the proposed Lion Square Lodge North proposal within the parameters of the Vail Town Code and the adopted Master Plans. III. BACKGROUND The Lion Square Lodge North site was annexed into the Town of Vail in August of 1969. According to Eagle County records, the existing 27 dwelling unit Lion Square Lodge North was originally constructed in 1974. According to Town of Vail records, a temporary Certificate of Occupancy was issued in April of 1975 and the final Certificate of Occupancy was issued in July of 1976. Only minor repairs and renovations have occurred since the original construction. The property was originally zoned Commercial Core 2 District and was rezoned to Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District in 1999. IV. ROLES OF THE REVIEWING BOARDS The purpose of this section of the memorandum is to clarify the responsibilities of the Design Review Board, Planning and Environmental Commission, Town Council, and Staff in review this major exterior alteration application: A. Exterior Alteration/Modification in the Lionshead Mixed-Use 1 zone district • 2 . Order of Review: Generally, applications will be reviewed first by the Planning and Environmental Commission for impacts of use/development and then by the Design Review Board for compliance of proposed buildings and site planning. Planning and Environmental Commission: Action: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for final approval/denial of a Major/Minor Exterior Alteration. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall review the proposal for compliance with the adopted criteria. The Planning and Environmental Commission's approval "shall constitute approval of the basic form and location of improvements including siting, building setbacks, height, building bulk and mass, site improvements and landscaping." Design Review Board: Action: The Design Review Board has no review authority on a Major or Minor Exterior Alteration, but must review any accompanying Design Review Board application. Staff.• The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided and plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines. Staff provides a staff memo containing • background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. Town Council: Actions of Design Review Board or Planning and Environmental Commission may be appealed to the Town Council or by the Town Council. Town Council evaluates whether or not the Planning and Environmental Commission or Design Review Board erred with approvals or denials and can uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the board's decision. V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS The following checklist was created to provide a means of evaluating the Lion Square Lodge North proposal for compliance with the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. The checklist is intended for the Planning and Environmental Commission to use in conjunction with their copies of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan to locate relevant portions of the Master Plan which pertain to this proposal. Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan • Chapter 2: Introduction ^ 2.1 Purpose of the Master Plan 3 ^ 2.2 Definition of a Master Plan • ^ 2.3 Policy Objectives ^ 2.3.1 Renewal and Redevelopment ^ 2.3.2 Vitality and Amenities ^ 2.3.3 Stronger Economic Base Through Increased Live Beds ^ 2.3.4 Improved Access and Circulation ^ 2.3.5 Improved Infrastructure ^ 2.3.6 Creative Financing for Enhanced Private Profits and Public Revenues Chapter 4: Master Plan Recommendations -Overall study Area ^ 4.1 Underlying Physical Framework of Lionshead ^ 4.1.1 Lionshead Master Plan Concept ^ 4.1.5 West Lionshead -Residential/Mixed-Use Hub ^ 4.3 Connections to the Natural Environment ^ 4.3.1 Visual Connections ^ 4.3.1.2 North-South Orientation of Buildings ^ 4.6 Vehicular and Pedestrian Circulation ^ 4.6.4 Modifications to West Lionshead Circle and • Lionshead Place ^ 4.6.4.1 East Intersection of W. Lionshead Circle and South Frontage Road ^ 4.6.4.2 Intersection of Lionshead Place and West Lionshead Circle ^ 4.6.4.3 Pedestrian Sidewalks and Crossings ^ 4.6.4.4 Visual Improvements ^ 4.7 Loading and Delivery ^ 4.7.1 Properties with Direct Service Access ^ 4.8 Parking ^ 4.8.2 Residential Properties ^ 4.9 Housing ^ 4.9.3 Policy Based Housing Opportunities ^ 4.10 Gateway, Landmarks, and Portals ^ 4.10.1 Gateways and Portals ^ 4.10.2 Landmarks ^ 4.11 Public Art Chapter 5, Detailed Plan Recommendations • ^ 5.12 Lion Square Lodge ^ 5.12.1 Traffic Concerns 4 • ^ 5.12.2 Pedestrian Connection between the Main Building and the North Building ^ 5.12.3 Ski Yard Pedestrian Access ^ 5.12.4 Potential Development and Redevelopment Scenarios Chapter 6, Site Design Guidelines ^ 6.3 Primary Pedestrian Walk ^ 6.6 Pedestrian Path ^ 6.8 Primary Pedestrian Walk Chapter 7, Design Standards ^ 7.1 Landscape Area ^ 7.2 Site Coverage ^ 7.3 Setbacks ^ 7.4 GRFA ^ 7.5 Density (Dwelling Units Per Acre) ^ 7.6 New Unit Definition ^ 7.7 Building Height Chapter 8, Architectural Design Guidelines • ^ 8.1 Vision Statement ^ 8.2 Organization, Purpose and Scope ^ 8.3 New and Existing Structures ^ 8.4 Design Guidelines ^ 8.4.1 Planning Considerations ^ 8.4.2 Architecture ^ 8.4.2.11ntroduction ^ 8.4.2.2 Building Form and Massing ^ 8.4.2.3 Building Height ^ 8.4.2.4 Exterior Walls ^ 8.4.2.5 Exterior Doors and Windows ^ 8.4.2.6 Balconies, Guardrails, and Handrails ^ 8.4.2.7 Roofs ^ 8.4.2.8 Fireplaces and Chimneys ^ 8.4.2.9 Details Zonina Reaulations Lionshead Mixed Use -1 Zone District • 12-7H-1: PURPOSE: 5 The Lionshead Mixed Use-1 zone district is intended to provide sites fora . mixture of multiple-family dwellings, lodges, hotels, fractional fee clubs, time shares, lodge dwelling units, restaurants, offices, skier services, and commercial establishments in a clustered, unified development. Lionshead Mixed Use 1 zone district, in accordance with the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses and to maintain the desirable qualities of the District by establishing appropriate site development standards. This District is meant to encourage and provide incentives for redevelopment in accordance with the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. This Zone District was specifically developed to provide incentives for properties to redevelop. The ultimate goal of these incentives is to create an economically vibrant lodging, housing, and commercial core area. The incentives in this Zone District include increases in allowable gross residential floor area, building height, and density over the previously established zoning in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan study area. The primary goal of the incentives is to create economic conditions favorable to inducing private redevelopment consistent with the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Additionally, the incentives are created to help finance public off-site improvements adjacent to redevelopment projects. With any development/redevelopment proposal taking advantage of the incentives created herein, the following amenities will be evaluated: streetscape improvements, pedestrian/bicycle access, public plaza redevelopmenf, public art, roadway improvements, and similar improvements. • 12-7H-2: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES; BASEMENT OR GARDEN LEVEL: A. Definition: The "basement" or "garden level" shall be defined as that floor of a building that is entirely or substantially below grade. B. Permitted Uses: The following uses shall be permitted in basement or garden levels within a structure: Banks and financial institutions. Commercial ski storage. Eating and drinking establishments. Personal services and repair shops. Professional offices, business offices and studios. Public or private lockers and storage. Recreation facilities. Retail establishments. Skier ticketing, ski school, skier services, and daycare. Travel agencies. Additional uses determined to be similar to permitted uses described in this subsection, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-3-4 of this Title. C. Conditional Uses: The following uses shall be permitted in basement or garden levels within a structure, subject to issuance of a conditional use • permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title: 6 • .Conference facilities and meeting rooms. Liquor stores. Lodges and accommodation units. Major arcade. Multiple-family residential dwelling units, time-share units, fractional fee clubs, lodge dwelling units, and employee housing units (Type 111 (EHU) as provided in Chapter 13 of this Title). Radio, TV stores, and repair shops. Theaters. Additional uses determined to be similar to conditional uses described in this subsection, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-3-4 of this Title. 12-7H-3: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES; FIRST FLOOR OR STREET LEVEL: A. Definition: The "first floor" or "street level" shall be defined as that floor of the building that is located at grade or street level along a pedestrianway. 8. Permitted Uses: The following uses shall be permitted on the first floor or street level within a structure: Banks, with walk-up teller facilities. Eating and drinking establishments. • Recreation facilities. Retail stores and establishments. Skier ticketing, ski school, skier services, and daycare. Travel agencies. Additional uses determined to be similar to permitted uses described in this subsection, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-3- 4 of this Title. C. Conditional Uses: The following uses shall be permitted on the first floor or street level floor within a structure, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title: Barbershops, beauty shops and beauty parlors. Conference facilities and meeting rooms. Financial institutions, other than banks. Liquor stores. Lodges and accommodation units. Multiple-family residential dwelling units, time-share units, fractional fee clubs, lodge dwelling units, and employee housing units (Type 111 (EHU) as provided in Chapter 13 of this Title). Radio, TV stores, and repair shops. Additional uses determined to be similar to conditional uses described in this subsection, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-3-4 of this Title. • 12-7H-4: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES; SECOND FLOOR AND ABOVE: 7 A. Permitted Uses; Exception: The following uses shall be permitted on those floors above the first floor within a structure: Lodges and accommodation units. Multiple-family residential dwelling units, time-share units, fractional fee clubs, lodge dwelling units, and employee housing units (Type 111 (EHU) as provided in Chapter 13 of this Title). Additional uses determined to be similar to permitted uses described in this subsection, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-3- 4 of this Title. 8. Conditional Uses: The following uses shall be permitted on second floors and higher above grade, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title: Banks and financial institutions. Conference facilities and meeting rooms. Eating and drinking establishments. Liquor stores. Personal services and repair shops. Professional offices, business offices and studios. Radio, TV stores, and repair shops. Recreation facilities. Retail establishments. Skier ticketing, ski school, skier services, and daycare. Theaters. Time-share units and fractional fee clubs. Additional uses determined to be similar to conditional uses described in this subsection, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-3-4 of this Title. 12-7H-5: CONDITIONAL USES; GENERALLY (ON ALL LEVELS OF A BUILDING OR OUTSIDE OFA BUILDING): The following conditional uses shall be permitted, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title: Bed and breakfast as further regulated by Section Title. Brew pubs. Coin-operated laundries. Commercial storage. Private outdoor recreation facilities, as a primary use. Public buildings, grounds, and facilities. Public or private parking lots. Public park and recreation facilities. Public utility and public service uses. Ski lifts and tows. Television stations. 12-14-18 of this • • 8 • Additional uses determined to be similar to conditional uses described in this subsection, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-3-4 of this Title. 12-7H-6: ACCESSORY USES: The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 zone district: Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-14-12 of this Title. Loading and delivery and parking facilities customarily incidental and accessory to permitted and conditional uses. Minor arcade. Offices, lobbies, laundry, and other facilities customarily incidental and accessory to hotels, lodges, and multiple-family uses. Outdoor dining areas operated in conjunction with permitted eating and drinking establishments. Swimming pools, tennis courts, patios or other recreation facilities customarily incidental to permitted residential or lodge uses. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof. 12-7H-7: EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS OR MODIFICATIONS: A. Review Required: The construction of a new building or the alteration of an • existing building that is not a major exterior alteration as described in subsection B of this section shall be reviewed by the design review board in accordance with chapter 11 of this title. 1. Submittal Items Required: The submittal items required for a project that is not a major exterior alteration shall be provided in accordance with section 12-11-4 of this title. B. Major Exterior Alteration: The construction of a new building or the alteration of an existing building which adds additional dwelling units, accommodation units, fractional fee club units, timeshare units, any project which adds more than one thousand (1,000) square feet of commercial floor area or common space, or any project which has substantial off site impacts (as determined by the administrator) shall be reviewed by the planning and environmental commission as a major exterior alteration in accordance with this chapter and section 12-3-6 of this title. Any project which requires a conditional use permit shall also obtain approval of the planning and environmental commission in accordance with chapter 16 of this title. Complete applications for major exterior alterations shall be submitted in accordance with administrative schedules developed by the department of community development for planning and environmental commission and design review board review. 1. Submittal Items Required, Major Exterior Alteration: The following submittal items are required: • a. Application: An application shall be made by the owner of the building or the building owner's authorized agent or representative on a form provided by the administrator. Any application for condominiumized buildings shall be authorized 9 by the condominium association in conformity with all pertinent requirements of • the condominium association's declarations. b. Application; Contents: The administrator shall establish the submittal requirements for an exterior alteration or modification application. A complete list of the submittal requirements shall be maintained by the administrator and filed in the department of community development. Certain submittal requirements may be waived and/or modified by the administrator and/or the reviewing body if it is demonstrated by the applicant that the information and materials required are not relevant to the proposed development or applicable to the planning documents that comprise the Vail comprehensive plan. The administrator and/or the reviewing body may require the submission of additional plans, drawings, specifications, samples and other materials if deemed necessary to properly evaluate the proposal. C. Work Sessions/Conceptual Review: If requested by either the applicant or the administrator, submittals may proceed to a work session with the planning and environmental commission, a conceptual review with the design review board, or a work session with the town council. D. Hearing: The public hearing before the planning and environmental commission shall be held in accordance with section 12-3-6 of this title. The planning and environmental commission may approve the application as submitted, approve the application with conditions or modifications, or deny the application. The decision of the planning and environmental commission may be • appealed to the town council in accordance with section 12-3-3 of this title. E. Lapse Of Approval: Approval of an exterior alteration as prescribed by this article shall lapse and become void two (2) years following the date of approval by the design review board unless, prior to the expiration, a building permit is issued and construction is commenced and diligently pursued to completion. Administrative extensions shall be allowed for reasonable and unexpected delays as long as code provisions affecting the proposal have not changed. i2-7H-8: COMPLIANCE BURDEN: It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence before the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Design Review Board that the proposed exterior alteration or new development is in compliance with the purposes of the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 zone district, that the proposal is consistent with applicable elements of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan and that the proposal does not otherwise have a significant negative effect on the character of the neighborhood, and that the proposal substantially complies with other applicable elements of the Vail comprehensive plan. 12-7H-9: LOT AREA AND SITE DIMENSIONS: The minimum lot or site area shall be ten thousand (10,000) square feet of buildable area. 12-7H-10: SETBACKS: • The minimum building setbacks shall be ten feet (10) unless otherwise specified in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan as a build-to line. 10 • 12-7H-11: HEIGHT AND BULK: Buildings shall have a maximum average building height of seventy one feet (71) with a maximum height of 82.5 feet, as further defined by the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. All development shall comply with the design guidelines and standards found in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Flexibility with the standard, as incorporated in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, shall be afforded to redevelopment projects which meet the intent of design guidelines, as reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board. 12-7H-12: DENSITY (DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE): Up to a thirty three percent (33%) increase over the existing number of dwelling units on a property or thirty five (35) dwelling units per acre, whichever is greater shall be allowed. For the purpose of calculating density, employee housing units, accommodation units, time share units, and fractional fee club units shall not be counted as dwelling units. Additionally, a "lodge dwelling unit'; as defined herein, shall be counted as twenty five percent (25%) of a dwelling unit for the purpose of calculating density. A dwelling unit in a multiple-family building may include one attached accommodation unit no larger than one-third (1/3) of the total floor area of the dwelling. 12-7H-13: GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA (GRFA): Up to two hundred fifty (250) square feet of gross residential floor area shall be allowed for each one hundred (100) square feet of buildable site area, or an increase of thirty three percent (33%) over the existing GRFA found on the property, whichever is greater. Multiple-family dwelling units in this zone district shall not be entitled to additional gross residential floor area under the 250 ordinance, section 12-15-5 of this title. 12-7H-14: SITE COVERAGE: Site coverage shall not exceed seventy percent (70%) of the total site area, unless otherwise specified in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. 12-7H-15: LANDSCAPING AND SITE DEVELOPMENT.' At least twenty percent (20%) of the total site area shall be landscaped, unless otherwise specified in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. 12-7H-16: PARKING AND LOADING: Off street parking and loading shall be provided in accordance with chapter 10 of this title. At least one-half (1/2) the required parking shall be located within the main building or buildings. 12-7H-17: LOCATION OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY.• A. Limitations; Exception: All offices, businesses and services permitted by zone district, shall be operated and conducted entirely within a building, except for permitted unenclosed parking or loading areas, the outdoor display of goods, or outdoor restaurant seating. B. Outdoor Displays: The area to be used for outdoor display must be located directly in front of the establishment displaying the goods and entirely upon the 11 establishment's own property. Sidewalks, building entrances and exits, driveways • and streets shall not be obstructed by outdoor display. 12-7H-18: MITIGATION OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS: Property owners/developers shall also be responsible for mitigating direct impacts of their development on public infrastructure and in all cases mitigation shall bear a reasonable relation to the development impacts. Impacts may be determined based on reports prepared by qualified consultants. The extent of mitigation and public amenity improvements shall be balanced with the goals of redevelopment and will be determined by the planning and environmental commission in review of development projects and conditional use permits. Mitigation of impacts may include, but is not limited to, the following: roadway improvements, pedestrian walkway improvements, streetscape improvements, stream tracbbank improvements, public art improvements, and similar improvements. The intent of this section is to only require mitigation for large scale redevelopment/development projects which produce substantial off site impacts. V. MAJOR EXTERIOR ALTERATION REVIEW CRITERIA Section 12-7H-8, Compliance Burden, Vail Town Code, outlines the review criteria for major exterior alteration applications proposed within the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 (LMU-1) Zone District. According to Section 12-7H-8, Vail Town Code, a major exterior alteration shall be reviewed for compliance with the following criteria: • 1. That the proposed major exterior alteration is in compliance with the purposes of the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 Zone District; 2. That the proposal is consistent with applicable elements of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan; 3. That the proposal does not otherwise have a significant negative effect on the character of the neighborhood; and, 4. That the proposal substantially complies with other applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan. VI. NEXT STEPS The following is a tentative schedule of hearings dates at which the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) and the Design Review Board (DRB) will be asked to review, comment, and take action on the Lion Square Lodge North redevelopment proposal: DRB May 3, 2006: Work session to inform the applicant of any comments or concerns. No formal action requested. PEC May 8, 2006: Detailed review for compliance with zoning and • master plan requirements. Request for final review and approval of the proposal if all PEC comments and concerns have been addressed. 12 • DRB May 17, 2006: Detailed review for compliance with design standards and master plan architectural requirements. Request for final review and approval of the proposal if all DRB comments and concerns have been addressed. VI1. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The desired outcomes of this work session are as follows: • For the Commission to understand how the proposed renovation to the Lion Square Lodge North is regulated by the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan; and • For the Commission to understand how the proposed renovation to the Lion Square Lodge North is regulated by the Lionshead Mixed Use - 1 zone district; and • For the Commission to understand the general elements and concepts of the applicant's renovation proposal. • For the Commission to provide the applicant with initial feedback on the proposed bulk, mass, height, setbacks, architectural style, parking and circulation, compatibility with the neighborhood, off-set of development impacts, etc. Staff and the applicant request that the Planning and Environmental Commission table this proposal for further review at the Commission's May 8, 2006, public hearing. VIII. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Applicant's Preliminary Zoning Calculations C. Applicant's Preliminary Master Plan Analysis D. Proposed Architectural Plans E. Public Notice F. Rimoch Letter dated April 20, 2006 r~ 13 "~ ~~o ~~ ~ ~~ O O • LION SQUARE LODGE -NORT H Attachment: B . Zoning Calculations 3/13/06 • Required Proposed Comments Site Area over 10,000 sf 42,089 conforms Setbacks 10 feet 10 feet min conforms not in cluding 124 sf presciptive ease ment (Maximum Roof Heights 71' avg, 82.5 max 71' avg, 82.5 max conforms Density 133% of exist. 133% of exist. conforms Allowable Units 36 Existing Units 27 Proposed Units 9 Total Units 36 GRFA 250 sf/100 sf build. site area 118 sf/100 sf build. site area conforms Allowable 105,223 sf Existing 24229 sf Proposed I 49,620 sf Site Coverage 70% max 70% conforms Allowable 29,462 sf Existing 16,649 sf Proposed New Building Footprint 5,812 roposed Parking Structure Footprint (be low grade) 6,992 oposed I 29,453 I conforms ~ Landscape 20% minimum 26% conforms Minimum Required 8,417 sf Proposed 11,100 sf Parking 1.4 per new dwelling unit 1.4 per new dwelling unit conforms Existing 34 New Required 13 Proposed 47 Provided Parking I I conforms Compacts 25%, 8x16 9 Full 75%, 9x19 43 HC 4 Total Provided 56 'Employee Housing Unit I 1 type III/IV I I I 1 type III/IV I on site Snow Storage I ~ I snow melted surface parking I conforms Building Eave Height at Remaining Area 60' max. eave height I I conforms with intent 12' min. step back conforms with intent urface Criteria I 35' maximum vertical face I conforms with intent I horizontal step required conforms with intent I Exterior Wall Spans I 30' maximum span at street level I conforms with intent I Prepared by: Melick Associates LION SQUARE LODGE -NORTH Zoning Calculations 3/13/06 Primary Secondary Building Material Primary Secondary Building Colors Primary Secondary Roof Definitions Roof Dimensional Guidelines Roof Pitch Primary: exceed 500 sf area Secondary: 500 sf area or less Primary: exceed 500 sf area Secondary: 500 sf area or less Primary: exceed 500 sf roof area Secondary: 500 sf roof area or less 30" min. eave and rake overhangs 18" overhangs at secondary roofs Primary: 6:12 to 12:12 Secondary: 4:12 to 12:12 (or flat) conforms with intent conforms with intent conforms with intent conforms with intent conforms with intent conforms with intent conforms conforms 12:12 conforms conforms • • Prepared by: Melick Associates MELICK ASSOCIATES INC Attachment: C LION SQUARE LODGE - NORTH PROJECT COMPLIANCE -Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan 3/13/06 Submittal to Community Development for the PEC and DRB approval process CHAPTER 5 -LION SQUARE LODGE Traffic Concerns - Thevehicular circulation was primarily dealt with by Vail Resorts during the approval process for the Arabelle project. Site access via Lionshead Place was realigned to accommodate both surface and sub terrain access to the Arabelle project for both lodging vehicles and delivery vehicles. Anew curb cut was added along the south of Lionshead Place to serve as the new front door to the Lion Square Lodge providing gated and parking access for the facility. A curb cut has been added along the south property line of the North project to provide access to the new lower level of parking. The existing curb cut along the west property line of the North project has been maintained and shifted to the property line to the north to provide access to the surface parking. Service vehicles will use this entry point, to the north of the building, to service the building. • A traffic impact study has been provided by Kimerly Horn to study the traffic impacts of adding nine new condominium units to the North project. They also provided the traffic impact study for the Arabelle so they are familiar with the surroundings. Their report states that no infrastructure upgrades are required due to the addition of the new units. Pedestrian Connection between the Main Buildina and the North Buildinq - Pedestrian access between the Main Building and the North Building was primarily dealt with by Vail Resorts during the approval process for the Arabelle project. Across walk has been provided across Lionshead Place between the two properties that ties into the sidewalk along the north side of the realigned Lionshead Place. The primary pedestrian entrance to the North project is the east lobby entrance in the east tower along the east side of the property. This provides a clear pedestrian connection and defined vehicular corridor between the Main Building and the North project. Ski Yard Pedestrian Access - Ski Yard Pedestrian Access was primarily dealt with by Vail Resorts during the approval process for the Arabelle project. Access to the ski yard is obtained from north and south of the East Building. The North building project does not impact ski yard pedestrian access. Potential Development and Redevelopment Scenarios - The North project is undertaking major exterior renovations with the addition of two new condominium towers to the east and west of the existing building. This additional density has been designed within the allowable requirements of the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 (LMU-1) District. • 25107 GENESEE TRAIL RD ARCHITECTURE SUITE ONE HUNDRED ONE I N T E R I O R S GOLDEN CO 80401 PLAN N I N G TEL 303.534 1930 CHAPTER 6 -SITE DESIGN GUIDELINES Primary Pedestrian Mall -not applicable • Secondary Pedestrian Mall -not applicable Primary Pedestrian Walk - Vail Resorts is providing the snowmelted sidewalk along the north edge of Lionshead Place as part of the Arabelle project. The North project will be providing a landscape buffer between the sidewalk and the units to the north. This landscaping will be achieved with a mix of deciduous and evergreen trees to protect views and sun exposure. Ornamentals, perennials and annual flowers will be provided for a wide variety of textures and seasonal color. The landscape materials will not interfere with the pedestrian walk or snow storage requirements at mature growth. Secondary Pedestrian Walk -not applicable Vehicular Pedestrian Retail Street -not applicable Pedestrian Path - The North project is adding a pedestrian path for access to the first floor units that will not be snowmelted. The materials will be integrally colored stamped concrete consistent with the surface finishes being used at the Main Building pool deck. The width of this secondary pedestrian walk will be five feet. Lighting long this path is provided with low pathway bollards consistent with the architectural design guidelines. A lawn will be provided to the south of the path as a transition to the bermed landscaping to the south along Lionshead Place. This zone will be defined by a low stone wall. . Fences and Enclosures - Service functions for the North project are being achieved within the building footprint and therefore will not require supplemental fencing. The outdoor hot tubs will be screened and privatized with the use of terraced stone walls softened with landscaping to the south of the west tower. Anew transformer will be located to the west of the west tower and will be screened and softened with the use of landscaping. Compliance with Town of Vail Streetscaoe Master Plan - CHAPTER 7 -DESIGN STANDARDS Landscape Area - A minimum of 20% of the site will be landscaped as required. (see calculations attached) Site Coverage - A maximum of 70% of the site will be covered by structures as required. (see calculations attached) Setbacks - A minimum of a ten foot setback will be provided as required. There is a prescriptive easement along the north property line to the east end that allows for a one story structure to be located along the property line as currently exists opposite the pool deck at Montaneros. (see calculations attached) Gross Residential Floor Area fGRFAI - The GRFA will not exceed 250 sf of GRFA for each 100 sf of buildable site area. (see • calculations and drawings depicting limits attached) Density - • The density will not exceed 133% of the existing number of units. (see calculations attached) New Unit Definition -not applicable Buildina Height -also see Chapter 8 The building height will not exceed 71 feet (average) and 82.5 feet (maximum). CHAPTER 8 -ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES Architecture - The form and massing of the building provides for a comfortable pedestrian scale and also breaks down the scale of the building utilizing a base, middle and top. Buildina Height - The building height fits within the maximum allowable of 71 feet (average) and 82.5 feet (maximum). The maximum initial eave height falls within the allowable for 'remaining building frontage'. The vertical wall face dimensions are broken with horizontal steps, changes in material and color to break down the massing of the building in order to provide for a higher quality and more interesting articulation. Exterior Walls - The exterior walls are designed with a base, middle and top. The rhythm and order of the renovated exterior on the existing building are dictated by the existing conditions. An effort has been made to break the roof lines and decks. Gable roof forms have been added at the deck elements to break the continuous horizontal line on the building and to provide an A, B rhythm. This is also enhanced with the use of painted metal railings and balusters at the balconies. A • mansard roof element has also been added along the perimeter of the building, between the gable roof forms over the decks, to soften and provide detail to the new elevations. The east and west ends of the existing building are also defined with a higher roof forms and different yet compatible articulation. This articulation and vocabulary of materials and treatment are what define the east and west towers to provide for a uniform treatment of the building exterior. Materials and Colors - The base is defined either with a different darker stucco color or stone, as well as a break in plane. The middle is defined by a lighter color of stucco. The top is defined by a change in material and texture with vertical siding the same color as the 'middle' stucco along with the roof and chimney form. All trims, eaves, rakes, trims, doors, and timber elements are white. Window cladding is bronze. The colors were chosen to blend with the surrounding structures while providing a visual and psychological warmth to pedestrians. Window Sizes. Shapes and Types - All windows have a consistency of size and proportion throughout the elevations. Operable windows will be casement. The windows will be aluminum clad, bronze. All windows will be trimmed, the color white. Balconies. Guardrails and Handrails - The balconies have been located to provide functional outdoor space and also to provide aesthetic benefit and detail to the building exterior. Where balconies are not practical, they have been added to the building exterior as a 'romeo and Juliet' balcony to provide visual detail and interest to the building exterior. The materials to be used for the handrail, pickets and • posts will be painted metal. The design of the railing system is patterned after the order of the building exterior elevations. Roofs - The roof forms being used include mansard roofs at the existing flat roofs, gable roofs over • existing balconies, and hipped roofs with gabled roofs capping the new structures. The mansard roof form on the existing building is a practical means of tying the existing structure into the new design elements of the renovated exterior and new towers. The structural capacity of the existing building will not tolerate the addition of a full pitched roof. Adding a full pitched roof to the existing building would also greatly diminish the view corridor being maintained between the two new towers for the properties to the north. The predominant gable roof forms being used take their cue from the simple, fragmented, gable roof forms of European villages. Roof overhangs will be constructed with the minimum 30 inch eave and rake overhangs along with the minimum of 18 inches at secondary roof forms. Ridge beams and outriggers will be visually sturdy members of 6x or 8x minimums. Rafter tails are not part of the exterior building vocabulary at this time. The roof pitch will be a 12:12 accept as noted otherwise on the drawings. Snow fences are being provided in locations to protect pedestrians below from falling snow and will be painted metal. Gutters and downspouts are planned to be integral to the roof forms with interior downspouts. Fireplaces and Chimneys - Stucco chimneys with open metal caps to promote air flow and screen spark arrestors are being provided for fireplace chimneys. Parkins - Parking Structure Design 1. Surface Parking - 22 surface parking spaces are provided with access from the ramp along the north property line. 2. Parking Decks - 34 parking spaces are provided in the lower parking level with access . from the ramp from the south opposite the Antlers curb cut. The decks are primarily flat except for what is required to properly drain the decks. 3. Structured Parking a. Parking Spaces -The enclosed parking spaces are 90 degrees to the drive aisle and 9' x 19', with 8' x 16' compact parking spaces not exceeding 25% of the total of the total required parking spaces. b. Height Clearance -The height clearance of the parking structure will be a minimum of 7' clear. c. Drive Aisles -The drive aisles are two way and 24' wide. d. Ramps -The ramps between levels are 24' wide with 12% slope. 4. Parking Needs Assessment and Vehicular Circulation Parking a. Parking Count Maintain Existing 34 New for New Condos 13 (1.4 spaces for each unit) Extra Spaces 9 (including handicap Total Parking Count 56 5. Circulation a. Existing curb cut and ramp location to remain basically the same. b. New ramp into the new lower level parking structure is located opposite the curb cut to the Antlers. c. 24' wide two-way drive aisles accommodate 90 degree parking stalls. Grading - 1. Maximum Finished Grade -The maximum finished grade does not exceed a 2:1 slope. The natural slope of the site is relatively flat. New grading to accommodate drainage will be blended into the natural topography. • 2. Construction Fence -The construction site will be properly surrounded by a non- removable construction fence during the construction process. 3. Erosion Control -Erosion control measures will be utilized using the best management • practices. The erosion control plan will be prepared by a registered Colorado Professional Engineer. Retaining Walls - 1. The retaining walls will be designed and stamped by a licensed P.E. Terrace landscape walls will be within the 4' - 6' maximum height range. Due to the relatively flat nature of the site retaining walls will not exist on slopes exceeding 30%. These walls will be veneered with stone. Geologic/Environmental Hazards - 1. The site does not contain snow avalanche, debris flow, rock fall, unstable soils or slopes or wetlands. • • Attachment: D 0 z Z 0 C7 z Q H z Q 0 a w a z 0 Z Q ~ N W N ~ a cri r"{ ~ '7 u - O O v U ~ ~ Q ~ n I""ll ~ '~ Y W J W a ~ 1.~~ k ~Z 6 I~ ~~ I` \~ i > _ ~~- U ,~ o „ ~ sii n e~sva~ Z ..w•.,. ~~ i ~ ...,.....~. ,~ . E ,~ z A ~ ~~ ~~ °z~o< ,~;~ wo-o~ O~s~i; 05 ao ~~ ~E~ ~~~ • z () i a w x - a~ W z~~= W~`o O~~` a° ~~ - a d ~~~ ~i ~ a~ o~~ .., ~~ a ~~ ~ ~ m ~^ W Z 0 • dad ~~ dE€~ ~S ddddddddddddddd ~~~~ ~ ~~~ g fs F° 5 "~ ~s° a~ m~ a ~. a~ n°~F~;,f fn ~b ~b Ch, d R- S~ C N ~~6 ~ f ~ o C J ~O~O E a P ~ ti e2b 'O $ ~ i @ °' ~ ~ ~ J !~ .a i ~ q x~~5° O~~ I4Q x i i I 1 I ~ ~ / ` I ~ l I f 1 ~ II i I ~~/ Imo- f~_- -- r-f'' ,~ ~a 4 n~k~l ~o.M a^w~Y ~/ N V "~ z ~} ~, i ~ R ^u I - ,~ \~~ 1a I ~ ,I I ~ 0 1~ 7 _ w Z x~ 1 ~Q o~ ,_ ~ ~ i~ ` 1 ~ j I ~ / I ~ = j I ~ - ~ ~~0 ~ ~. ~&a Y ' I I 1 `~ g~a ~ I ~ - ;~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ - i ~ ~ ` o~ w ~ -- ~ ~ _'~t 4 ;o Y~ ~~ ~ SR® / s Ye ~ _.. _. ~ / 1 I ` _ ` /7 I ,, I~ ,~ ~ 'i ,~ s _~ _ I ~ ~~ p ~~o i _ ~ ~ ~. ® sRIJ ~ ~ ° ~\ ~~ ~- z 1 - ._ ~ o aZ ¶e1V, O/ Z r_ ~~® ` J / a ~ ~- ? .I+I+wi ~. / / I ~ / r I _ p I I ' i~ O o ~RL'1 I ~ __ ' I ~ J _ ~ p ~_ -__I. I I I I 9 i~ - I ~~ ~ ~w / ~' - ~ ~-~ ~~ ~ .. ~ i ~ ,' i ~ i ,~ i ~ I ~ I ~~ L_ -----_ I~.-- -- ''--~ ~/ ~-'--- .... \ .. I ~ ~ ~~~ \ _ 9 ~ ® ao / Y . ~k _o ~ ~' 1 ~~o ~ ~~ ~ _~ ~~o ~~ 4 Y I 1' ~~o i - ~--- . \ ~~, ` ~ /~ ~ « 3 \ ~~ , .~ \ V1T\ <~ ag Zo J Z 1 0 ~, o~ _, ,. ,~ ~, i i ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ' i i ' i ~ , ~ ~ i ~ / ~ I ~ur- ~ I i I ' ~ .. ..~ ~n ... .. ~ . / I I ~ I ~ i I ~ ~ ~ -~___- , ~~4~ ~~ko 7~y: ~~~~ W~ • • ~ ~ 5 m o~ zoa? ~n~' o~~: ~ Y I \ IH a ~~ ~ ~~ ~; \ 'z \ 4~ 1 7 ~ ao o~ J ~ ~./ / `f ~~ ~`1 1 1 f I l ~~ ,~. I ~ I 1 . ~ 1 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ II i f i ~~~ '/ ~ L _--- ----- f~ ~/ _ --- - f _ _._ \~, ~ -- ~ - - - --id ~ ~ r_ -___._____-~ `l•. i ~ i i i ` ~ p ~ ~ i p33 ~_____--_-~ ..___-__J i ~ ~ r ~ b~ ' ~ C I ~%. ~ , I O I o I --~-------- ~ ~~o II[ I I ~T-_-_____T _-__ r _ _ l __~ _--~ `, 0 _I d I ,~ ~ I V \~ Nb^ I b to p b p b O 0 f E~E ~ a d; ~°°Y ,4~~ Yfj~2 ,, 1 i--~ ~ ® ~ ' %'= J' G ^' i ~ o ----- ---, ~---------------- x ~ ;,, ----~~ - ___ 1 1 / ",'~ --- ~_ ~. ,- -_ _ il ~ IILII~I d II Ill 9 ~~' --= ~` z a ~~ p U - W ~ k o '`'~ J W ~ ~ a ~~ _s z 0 a L-~ ` \ za a~ ' ei _ a i ~ :i i 5 ~ ~ p°a ~ '~H1 i ,;, J, ~~---, ''~ 1F-~--- Z ~ / / aZ ~ ,~ O s o o ~ .'. ~ 5 ~~~~ ~ I l i ;;; O ; $ ,__ ~ ~ `~`~ -- ~, O S I '~ Q `_ ~__~ - I - - -' I i ~I O ; a ~ '~ 5 I ~~ i~ O I 4 I Y ' ! ~i \\\\\\\\ --j I ~ " ' ---. S' LI ~~ ' I ~ I - ~ __ __ _. ~~ I~~ !o q o __---________-_ I ~~ I~~ ~;~ - I- - _= -- -- , -- ___ ~ "' I~ =~ /~. / ~ ,~~ 4s .-=: .:=: .. --~_~ ~. ,~~ ~ ~~\ • j -= ~ I. ~= F ~I ~ ._. - -- - - c~® - s ~ ~ J 5 5 ~ ~ • ~ . I t11 ' 1' i ~ , ~ =1 ; o ~,_~a ~ ~~` Hof ~ Qo ~ ~~ ~_ \ ~ ~ a \ O a ~ 1 ~~ o ~ _ _ _ ~ ~ L~ O O ~~ ~~ . • 1 ~: yak` I - ~0 ~ o ~o f ~ _~ ~~ 1_ is I ~ ~~ ° ~ - 's "~~n~rLo® - / ~_ @ z~ - g - I I ~ ~ ~ -. t ~ 4 i ~ g ~ ~ _€ ~~ ~ e ~ ;€ u ^ _- u ~ ~~ Y.. _ _ ~I~ I~ ~ II~ II®Q ~, eoo _ ~ ,~ ~ ~~ .., n R ,' I, .~ s. ~ ~ -~___~_._~_- -- g ~~ ~~ n/ • _~ r--~ _- _ ~~~_~1j'-~ _ ~:, r ~ _ _ I ~~ I / - / /~ __ ~~ -• f / a i 0 4 i~ 6i a~ o~~ i x~§ . ~ o~ W .. p> . `~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ .!- \ ~ ' \ ,3 ~~ I \ _ Z ~ n ~~~ ~ i60 ' \ \ \ ~r9 ~ rIt y wa '' ~ ~ R of ~(S z i 0 ~' ~€ ~ e ~~ L ~' ~ l ~$ J o= _ __ ~ ~~ 1 ~ ~ 1 g f : °z ~ a ~ ~ - . ~ ~ ~ ' .~ ~` ~ ~ ~ ~ = t 1 I I ~ 9 M ~ ` ~ II ' 5 ~ ~ ICJ I I `' ~ ~ ~ I 1 1 ~ - ~ ~~ ~ I , I I : ~ ;,r ~ 4 u t n If I t I ~ 6 ~ I Y I ~ 1 ~ '~ y, r. ~t7 ~ ~ ~ } ~ 1 ~~ 1 & ~ 1 ~ I $ Q ~. ' ~ I I ~ I ~ ~q- ; t , e ~~ i~ ` ~ ~~ - N 10' ®~® ~ i ~ R - I ~_- . F ~ ~ie 1y ~lJ hLtlJl { ~ i 1 ~ I ) _~ R~ / ~ I 6 a S 3 ®i~ ~a p ~ O I Z ~ G ~~ ,. R 5 ~`d '" :p ® / ~ i I x0 ~ o o .~ i 1 I e 1 i o'QO ~ 4 ~ C~ ~~ ~ • • • O Z O ve y3 ~o z _ ~ /~ ~. ,- / ~ , X„~\ z~€ ~ ~ a w ~. I z~s .~ DoE • ~ v ~ . .a .n I~ a f¢.~~ a \~ ~ ~ a ~ : * ~ ~ 1\ ~ _ S ~ ~ =1 Q O os "Z J ~_ ~~ 0 Z, ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~e. r ,; '~ ~, ~ ~~~ ~~~ { @ e ~ ~ $ 8 ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~~e~~ o ~ 4 ° ° a ~~ O 0 z oW 0 ~3 I~ L. -- ~ \ \ - \ \. \ ~1 \- I ~ ~~~ g~ ~~ __ 1 ~o os J o ~_ ~ ~~`~ Z . ~ a 0 a z E f r~7 ~i i Z~a= wo$~ C~o~Y O" .~ < - W i d • • O D Z O .~ uW ~3 ~O Z L. L__ 7 j ~ ~ a 4 4 apco ~Oy: an~~ d i Y ~ 6 I E F s O 0 Z O~ h~ ~O Z i i ~~ ~ i ~.. I I I I I I ~ ~ I I - I I ~ o I° o~ ~~ 3 ~ o= i IZ~ ~ ., , L_-_ L~-- -- - - -- -- \ _ ~ S ,~ l~f_, / : _nL l~ ~~ - ~ ~ y \ ~ i Y ~ ~ ___ ~R ~ ° u I~ 1 ~ \ 3 S \~ ~ :~ j ~ - ~~ ~ 1 ~ ~ o Z ° ° zo J \ _ ~ ~,~ ~_ ~ ~ ,\',, - _ ~ z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ® / , ~ ~~ ~ ~ \~ ~ ~ ~ (~ ~ _ \\ _ ~ I __ ~~$R ~,., _ I ~ °i 1 - I I E R ~ ~ i n / ~ Q _ / / -- ® ~ ~ ~ / o o ~ / ® O / z ~ ~ m a7~ = zae: Wxeo C7o- QW ~~~" d ..] ,- s ~ ~ ~ R ~ ~ O -~ 3 ~ / / 1 ~ ~ / _ri- ~ ~ i U . ___~ a ~~ ~~ • • O 0 Z o~ ~° z ~~ ~ ~s I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ g i I ~ i ~ 0 o0 i~ - ~ _ _~ I~ L__- -- - ~' ~ ~ ~ b - \ ~ a ~ \ ~-7 ~ f~-~ i \ ~ a4i ~ \ a \ ~ z \ \ ~\ _ ! ~~ \` ~ ° ~ z 1 _ <~ - ~g ~Z ~ _ zo o~ ~ i / O O Z Oa Uk ~' \l JII /7 I 1 i I I f t J tr- (1~ .~--'- ' ~-------'' .. ;; .. ~° p! Q ~a m~ z~a` WwFo ~o O°~" 0. I aF zQ 0 a ve ~~ i ~iid ~oooo • • U 5 ~I t _: ~; ~~ z i ;~9 lg~~ 9;4 s i ' ! 0000 0 a > ;( 3~ f ~ ~ ~S64B 0000 o ~ a e w ~n f TtT >Z i W ~ F O 0 O g y ~F t? !~ I c~ z ~> w~ ~~ x~ - oa 7Zn~ W W F o Ca a~ < Oa J a G7~ ~ i a [¢~~ z~ f ~~vo #~(~~ 0000 00 z Y 7 O ~ ~ t ' 3 ';tiS~ X00000 8 P ~6 ~ iiip t' ~ t l ~€$Rt~ ~~, ° € 0 0000 ~ a o 0 `z Q 6 8 ~1 F ..~~~ i~ 1~ • . ~ 6, ~ ~ 909 E $= p I I I I I I ~ ~ I I I I I l , ,, ~ ! ~,~I, _ ' .I ~~ I ~I II II I p~ I I~~~~IIIL~I III ~ Ill~i I III I .il.~uh,;i I III I I I 11 1 I III I I e ~-g~ig~l I I .., I I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I Be ~~ ~ ~ ~ .., .., ... .,~ ~ ~ I. r B: q 6 ~ i~ ~ ,.m ~ e f-~ I ..~ I I ~~ II ~~ I I I I I II II II I I I I I I I I I~~ I II II II I I III II II II I ,i z O w I I I I I I I I I I I I I I B a"i B? II I II I II I II I I~ I , II I ''' II ~II~' I i ~~ ~ ~III'~'I'>~ i I,~„ I II I I I ~ I I II I I I I I I I $ g ~ gtg ~; a; ~ sE Ae 6e ~ ~ B'8s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I .. .., .., .., .., .. g ~ I 6 9 ~ \ gi ~R 8*_ ~~ ~6 li ~ 1 /-~ ~ I = 1 ~1~_ I I ~_. I ~ ~ ~; ~ I ,_ _ I I I ~ I 'I. I~ =i'~ l7 l7 0 0 Z 0 F `~~ S 3 0 F w ~4= Wto °~: 0. Y z F Q w e F 1 j o ~ l g ~ 6 a ~ ~ i' 3 ~~-i~~ w . i e ~8 ~ i i 0 i~# €, ~~i~ ~ ~ 0 0000 9 s u a g Z O 1 ^!. i~ I II II II I I II II II ~ ii ~~ II i n ii I I II II II I I II II II I I II II II I II II II i I I I I I ~: gy ~9p 90 ~= s ~- 1--:.- ' .. ' .. 0 F G I 6D8 9s BsB~s l y ~ III III a III III ~ 1.. ul i III u''' I; I ~ I~dii I i ~ I i . ' I 9"~ I ~ , Z PS I I i I I , BAa~ ; ! ye IR I I i i 0 p~ R c B ~E of 9 5 8 W n z 0 `¢ a Qz ]F w~ ~w °z~a= ,a-~ Iwh~o v 0.' Opa%. W z i a <~ z~ 0 a o~ ~~ ~n • • • RI F ~ C I i,, I I ', I I I;I I II~~L ~' I Ii I+~' J' ~~ i ~; € I~ ~~ ~ aran a= I 9 ~ S ~ : t ~ p y G Y 6 I I i , i ... _ ., . .. ~, . . o f ~s $ ~ ~ _ ~ i ? ~ i ~ Y ~ ~ E ~ 4 i i ~ g ~ s ~ ~ 6 6 & A H F s: ~ I II I I - - ~ o I III I ~ r ~~ III it h i I .~ ~ ~ , I I I C I I I y~ I ~ i~ li 7 ~~~ ~ ~ I I , I I ~r i I ~'1 I ~ ~ ~ I I I I ~4!, I ; r ~ ' ' - ~ l r~ ~ I II 1 ~ 'll 1 I j I I C I _ ' ~ II 6 I I I I ~ ~ ~' ~`~ ]~ ~7 ~ ~ I I ~' III ~ , ~ I II ~~ ~' ~ '~I~~ ~ ` I - - I II I i t .~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ :1 ~ J ~ I I I JIII r- ~ , . . : ',~ I I ~ III' I ~ ~ ~'~ ~ ~~~ ~ ' `~ ~} ,g'~ °'~ I I S III I ~ ~~I~~r ~ it i~ ~ , I~ ~~ - 1 I l~h~V! i I I I I ° I ~+ ~~ ~ I I I I I I I I I I v 'c ~ n d3 spy T3 n ~ ~ @ ~ f 0 0 s a 0 z J 3 S 3 OO z z~g= waEo~ °o~~c a w~ a a Z 4 b o ~ ~ , o ¢ a ~ g ~tlif~ W00000 ei ~~ ~ g ~ i~ ( F ~ ~~~#~~ ~~~: ~ ~ t 0 0000 r--~ O C~ r i r a„`` `M~ ~,""~ ~. J a ~, ~ ,{ ~ w ~ ~ ~ w -- c~ ao ~ ~ *~ =~ ~~~ ~ } { /~ I 1 ,{ r ..~ ., + !~ t~ ~, r J -~ ~1 W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;~ ~ t'*1 W ~ ~"" ~; ff, 1 r ~ ~• A it ~ `"a i r a r r /F F ~ 1 ~. ~~ ~,~r~ J ~" ~' 4 ~.. .. r-- r rW- ~ w `" `~ ~ ~ ~ J c~ ~ ~ -- cC \~,~ ~~ ~ "~~ xK ,e ~~' . ~,.. '.'7M'' ~ 1 u'~f ~°° ~ ~ ~ ~;,.. ~ ~" ~ C`~ ~ ~- '•.. t ~ ~~~~ ~ t"fo*~~ ~ 4 W y+o.r ~.. ~ rr A. . ,. `*~] .. a 4 tom- ~ ~~. ~="i_..~s t3b~i.e..,~..~~o __ _-- 1 t ~. ',' ~; 3 ~''; Y M aiw/ 'R 1 ,/A~ ,} ~F~IM ~ rr~ Attachment: E • ,~~,~ ' THIS ITEM MAPUBL C NOT O ER PROPERTY NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with section 12-3-6, Vail Town Code, on April 24, 2006, at 2:00 pm in the Town of Vail Municipal Building, in consideration of: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for Ski Base Recreation 2 zone district on a 5.13 parcel of land commonly referred to as the "Front Door USFS land exchange parcel", located at 151 Vail Lane/ (A complete legal description is available at the Community Development Department), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0014) Applicant: United States of America, by and through the Forest Service, represented by Vail Resorts Development Company Planner: George Ruther A request for a final review of a variance, from Section 12-6D-9, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a site coverage variance to construct a residential addition, located at 1816 Sunburst Drive, Units A and B/Lot 1 Vail Valley Filing 3 and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0016) • Applicant: John K. and Helen Jo Cahalin, represented by RKD Architects Planner: Warren Campbell A request for a final review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7H-7, Major Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the renovation of the Lion's Square Lodge North, located at 660 West Lionshead Place/Lot 8, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0019) Applicant: Lion's Square Lodge North Condominium Association, represented by Viele Development Planner: Bill Gibson A request for a final review of a text amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendments, Vail Town Code, to allow for an amendment to Section 12-21-14, Restrictions in Specific Zones on Excessive Slopes, Vail Town Code, to increase the amount of allowable site coverage on lots with excessive slopes from 15% to 20%, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0020) Applicant: Helmut Reiss, represented by Isom & Associates Planner: Matt Gennett A request for a final review of an amendment to a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7H-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, and a final review of an amendment to a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-7H-2, Permitted and Conditional Uses; Basement or Garden Level, and 12-7H-3, Permitted and Conditional Uses; First Floor on Street Level, Vail Town Code to allow for the development of 4 additional multi-family residential dwelling units (total of 111 dwelling • units), located at 728 West Lionshead Circle/Lot 2, West Day Subdivision, and setting ~~ ~~~ ~YWI~ ~/ ~~"„11 , ',,7~/y/Y, ,,1M" ~~ Y ~Y~ ! ~ • forth details in regard thereto. (Ritz-Carlton Residences)(PEC05-0021 and PEC05- 0022). Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc., represented by Jay Peterson Planner: Warren Campbell A request for a final review of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for an amendment to an existing platted building envelope, located at 1722 Buffehr Creek Road/Lot 5, Block A, Lia Zneimer Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0025) Applicant: Crack of Noon, L.P., represented by KH Webb Architects Planner: Elisabeth Eckel Reed A request for final review of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for floodplain modifications, located at 2764, 2754, and 2695 South Frontage Road/Lots A, B, and C, Stephens Subdivision; and a request for a final review of floodplain modifications, pursuant to Chapter 14-6, Grading Standards, Vail Town Code, to allow for grading within the floodplain, located at 2764, 2754, and 2695 South Frontage Road/Lots A, B, and C, Stephens Subdivision, and 2450 South Frontage Road/Unplatted and setting forth details in regard. (PEC06-0001 and PEC06-0027) Applicant Town of Vail, Louise Young, Brian Hoyt, Maggie Froning, Lorraine Howenstine, and Chas Bernhardt Planner: Bill Gibson • A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for proposed text amendments to Section 12-7H-5, Conditional Uses; Generally (On all Levels of a Building or Outside of a Building), to allow for seasonal use or structures as a conditional use in Lionshead Mixed Use I District; Section 12-7H-18, Mitigation of Development Impacts, to clarify the inclusion of employee housing as a mitigation of development impacts; Section 12-8C-3, Conditional Uses, to allow for ski lifts not including loading and unloading areas as a conditional use of the Natural Area Preservation District; Subsection 12-18-5B, Density Control, to clarify limitations on structures which do not conform to density controls; and Chapter ~14-3, Residential Access, Driveway and Parking Standards, to clarify standards for access, driveway and parking for commercial properties; Vail Town Code, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0026) Applicant: Town of Vail, Community Development Planner: Rachel Friede The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call 970-479-2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request, with 24-hour notification. Please call 970-479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Published April 7, 2006, in the Vail Daily. Attachment: F • Apri120, 2006 Planning Commission Town of Vail Vail, CO We are owners of two units at Montaneros and have been~for the past 30 years. We are dismayed to have just learned that Lions Square North has applied for planning permission for an expansion consisting of two towers on either end of their building We are writing this letter to request that planning approval to Lions Square North be denied for the expansion of the ,two towers on either end oftheir building. Last year Montaneros made a substantial exterior renovation, practically the.first building to do so before new projects like the Arrabela, and trying to fit in with the new style for Lionshead. We were aware from the beginning that the Arrabela project would block some of our views and sunlight, but we also were aware that this would probably be of benefit to Lionshead and to Vai] as a whole. If the new project for Lions Square North was to be approved, it would not only damage considerably the value of our property by blocking our views and sunlight completely, but most important it would brake a previous agreement • made between Montaneros and the original owners of the plot of land where Lions Square North is presently located. We have in fact looked at the drawings prepared by Lions Square North, specifically the ones dealing with shading as existing and shading with the proposed plans. We would like to make you aware that the land on which Lions Square North was built, belonged originally to Montaneros. This land was sold to what later became Lions Square North, a Mr. David Cole was the Real Estate agent involved in the transaction. This sale was done in the early 1970s and an agreement was made making the sale conditional to Lions Square North not to build above THREE STORIES HIGH. This was set up as an agreement between seller (Montaneros) and buyer (Lions Square North) in order to guarantee that the view would not be obstructed by the new building. If the Planning Commission were to authorize the expansion of Lions Square North, including the height requested by this new proposal, you would in effect be breaching a previous contract agreed upon with Montanero's homeowners, as well as diminishing the value of our property by obstructing light and views. Sincerely, Alberto Rimoch Montaneros 202 641 W. Lionshead Cir. • Vail, CO MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: April 24, 2006 SUBJECT: A request for a final review of a text amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendments, Vail Town Code, to allow for an amendment to Section 12-21-14, Restrictions in Specific Zones on Excessive Slopes, Vail Town Code, to increase the amount of allowable site coverage on lots with excessive slopes from 15% to 20%, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0020) Applicant: Helmut Reiss, represented by Isom & Associates Planner: Matt Gennett SUMMARY The applicant, Helmut Reiss, is requesting to amend Section 12-21-14, Restrictions in Specific Zones on Excessive Slopes, Vail Town Code, which further restricts site coverage on lots with average slopes in excess of 30% within four of the nine residential zone districts established in Chapter 12-6, Residential Districts, Vail Town Code, to a • maximum of 15% of the total site area, instead of the standard 20% maximum. The rationale behind the applicant's request is to allow for greater flexibility in the design and construction of residences on steep hillsides (Attachment A). Based upon staff's review of the criteria in Section IV of this memorandum, and further analysis into site disturbance related to residential development (Attachment B), the Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval with modifications to the Vail Town Council, subject to the findings noted in Section V of this memorandum. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Helmet Reiss, represented by Isom & Associates, is proposing a text amendment to Section 12-21-14.E.1, Restriction in Specific Zones on Excessive Slopes, Vail Town Code, to increase the allowable site coverage from 15% to 20% in the zone districts: Hillside Residential (HS), Single Family Residential (SFR), Two-Family Residential (R), and Two-Family Primary Secondary Residential (P/S), as specified by 12-21-14. E.1. The proposed text amendment is as follows: (deletions are shown in J`.r~~?-t#reag#/additions are shown bold) + fifloon porno nl / GO/ + kilo ~ro.~ m.ev L+ ~. s..,,~e-t man . t1..,e-}-sf .h~ a • ~nj~,tinstien-v~~ith a T}~~o I Eayea ~leasi~g !'ni+, ir. s~ Cr:^r or 1? sf +h~s Title, i~v#ish-sass ~~ r:i~e-thGr.. ° s site aroa :~~c}' he-6e~ Bred-",y ~Fil~if}5 S ; c n d 2--1. Not more than ten percent (10%) of the total site area may be • covered by driveways and surface parking. III. BACKGROUND On June16, 1978, the Vail Town Council approved by a unanimous vote Ordinance No. 12, Series of 1978, which Is entitled as follows: An Ordinance Amending Title 18 of the Vail Municipal Code Related to Zoning; Providing New or Amended Definitions Pertaining to Buildable Site Area; Defining Avalanche Hazard Areas, Flood Plain Hazard Areas; Setting Forth Site Dimensions, Density Controls, Site Coverage, Gross Residential Floor Area, As Affected by the Specified Hazard Areas; Setfing Forth Details in Relation to the Foregoing; and Providing a Severability Clause for this Ordinance. Ordinance No. 12, Series of 1978, added the then new Chapter 18.69, entitled Hazard Regulations, and includes the following purpose statement: 18.69.010 Purpose -The purpose of this ordinance is to protect the flood plains, avalanche paths, steep slopes, and other natural hazards of the Town of Vail; to regulate the use of land areas subject to flooding, avalanche, and slopes; to protect economic and property values, aesthetic and recreational values, and other natural resources and values associated with the floodplains, avalanche areas, and slopes; and to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. • (The purpose statement in today's Hazard Regulations, Section 12-21-1, Vail Town Code, has not changed substantially from the aforementioned purpose statement and is even broader with respect to why Chapter 21, Hazard Regulations, presently exist: 12-21-1: PURPOSE: The purpose of this Chapter is to help protect the inhabitants of the Town from dangers relating to development of flood plains, avalanche paths, steep slopes and geologically sensitive areas; to regulate the use of land areas which may be subject to flooding and avalanche or which may be geologically sensitive; and further to regulate development on steep slopes; to protect the economic and property values of the Town, to protect the aesthetic and recreational values and natural resources of the Town, which are sometimes associated with flood plains, avalanche areas and areas of geological sensitivity and slopes; to minimize damage to public facilities and utilities and minimize the need for relief in cleanup operations; to give notice to the public of certain areas within the Town where flood plains, avalanche areas and areas of geologic sensitivity exist; and to promote the general public health, safety and welfare.) Likewise, Ordinance No. 12, Series of 1978, implemented the first iteration of the text which the applicant proposes to amend, under Section 18.69.050(A)5, which reads in full as follows: • 18.69.050 SPECIAL RESTRICTIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT ON SITES IN EXCESS OF 40 PERCENT SLOPE IN SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, AND TWO FAMILY 2 • PRIMARY/SECONDARY RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICTS - (A) The following additional special restrictions or requirements shall apply to development on any lot in a Single Family Residential, Two Family Residential, or Two Family Primary/Secondary Residential Zone District where more than 50 percent of the area of the lot is in excess of 40 percent slope as defined in Section 18.040.365 and/or any portion of a structure or parking area is located within the 40 percentslope area: (5) Site coverage as it pertains to this chapter, as permitted by Sections 18.10.110, 18.12.110 and 18.13.090, is hereby amended as follows: Not more than 15 percent of the sife area may be covered by buildings; and not more than 10 percent of the total site area maybe covered by driveways and surface parking. On June 21, 1994, the Vail Town Council approved by a vote of 7-0 Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1994, which included the following language: WHEREAS, the Town Council believes that the following amendment will result in development that is more sensitive to the site with less site disturbance; and WHEREAS, the Town Council believes that the following amendment will • streamline the development review process for proposed developments on sites where the average slope is greafer than 30 percenf. On February 7, 1995, the Vail Town Council approved by a vote of 6-1 Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1995, which included the following language: WHEREAS, Section 18.69.050 of fhe Town of Vail Municipal Code allows garages to be located in the front setback when the average slope of the site, beneath the proposed structure and parking area, exceeds thirty percent; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to reduce the impact of these structures in the front setback by limiting their height to a single-story with a pitched or flat roof with the design of the garage subject to review and approval by the Design Review Board. NOW, THEREFORE, the Town Council ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: 1) Section 18.69.50.x. shall be amended as follows: K. Setbacks, as They apply to this chapter, as required by Sections 18.09.060, 18.12.060, and 18.13.060, are amended as follows: There shall be no required front setback for garages, except as may be required by the Design Review Board. Garages located in the front setback , as provided for in this Section 18.69.050, shall be limited to one story in height (not to exceed ten feet) with the addition of a pitched or flat roof and subject to review and approval by the Design Review Board. . On April 17, 2001, the Vail Town Council approved by a vote of 5-2 Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2001, which included the following language: WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail has recommended approval of these amendments at its February 13, 2001, 3 meeting, and has submitted recommendation to the Vail Town Council; and • WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds that the proposed amendments further the development objectives of the Town of Vail; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds that the proposed amendments do not alter, purpose, or policy of the current regulations of the Town of Vail; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds that the proposed amendments will make the Town's development review process less problematic and more "user friendly'; and WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council considers if in the interest of the public health, safety, and welfare to adopt These amendments to The Town Code. Section 3. Section 12-21-14 is hereby amended as follows: 12-21-14E. Site coverage, as it pertains to this Chapter, as permitted by Sections 12-6A-9, 12-6B-9, aid 12-6C-9, and 12-6D-9 of this Title, is amended as follows: 1. Not more than fifteen percent (15%) of the site area may be covered by buildings, except in coniunction with a Tvpe I Employee Housing Unit in accordance with Chapter 13 of this Title, in which case not more than twenty percent (20%) of the site area maybe covered by buildings: and • 2. Not more Phan ten percent (10%) of the tots! site area may be covered by driveways and surface parking. On April 25, 2005, the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) unanimously recommended approval of the applicant's request as proposed. On June 7, 2005, the Vail Town Council denied the applicant's request as proposed by a vote of 4-1. IV. CRITERIA The review criteria and factors for consideration for a request of a text amendment are established in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 12-3, Vail Town Code. 1. The extent to which the text amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations; and, Staff believes the proposed text amendment, as submitted, does not further the general and specific purposes of Title 12, Zoning Regulations. However, with the modifications to the applicant's requested amendment as proposed by staff in Section V of this memorandum, the general and specific purposes of Title 12 are furthered. According to Section 12-1-2, Purpose, Vail Town Code, the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations are as follows: A. General: These regulations are enacted for the purpose of promoting the • health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town, and to promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner 4 • that will conserve and enhance its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of high quality. 8. Specific: These regulations are intended to achieve the following more specific purposes: 1. To provide for adequate light, air, sanitation, drainage, and public facilities. 2. To secure safety from fire, panic, flood, avalanche, accumulation of snow, and other dangerous conditions. 3. To promote safe and efficient pedestrian and vehicular traffic circulation and to lessen congestion in the streets. 4. To promote adequate and appropriately located off-street parking and loading facilities. 5. To conserve and maintain established community qualities and economic values. 6. To encourage a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with Municipal development objectives. 7. To prevent excessive population densities and overcrowding of the land with structures. 8. To safeguard and enhance the appearance of the Town. 9. To conserve and protect wildlife, streams, woods, hillsides, and other desirable natural features. 10. To assure adequate open space, recreation opportunities, and other amenities and facilities conducive to desired living quarters. 11. To otherwise provide for the growth of an orderly and viable • community. Upon review of the stated purposes of the Zoning Regulations, staff believes that this proposed text amendment does not further these purposes. The prescribed text the applicant wishes to amend was specifically enacted to protect the natural topography of the steep slopes in question; to protect the inherent aesthetic and economic value of the undisturbed terrain threatened by this proposed text amendment; and to protect the public health, safety, and welfare; as clearly tracked and outlined in Section III of this memorandum. However, staff does believe the modified version of the existing language, as listed in Section V of this memorandum, which addresses site disturbance specifically, rather than attempting to minimize site disturbance through the further restriction of maximum site coverage on steep slopes, will fulfill this criterion. 2. The extent to which the text amendment would better implement and better achieve the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town; and, Staff does not believe the text amendment request, as submitted, better implements or achieves the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, • and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan, nor is it entirely compatible with the development objectives of the Town. 5 With the addition of staff's suggested language limiting site disturbance explicitly, • however, staff does believe this criterion will be met, especially in consideration of the following specific goals: 2. To secure safety from fire, panic, flood, avalanche, accumulation of snow, and other dangerous conditions; 5. To conserve and maintain established community qualities and economic values; 6. To encourage a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with Municipal development objectives; 8. To safeguard and enhance the appearance of the Town; and 9. To conserve and protect wildlife, streams, woods, hillsides, and other desirable natural features. 3. The extent to which the text amendment demonstrates how conditions have substantially changed since the adoption of the subject regulation and how the existing regulation is no longer appropriate or is inapplicable; and, Staff has found that this text amendment proposal, as submitted, does not demonstrate how conditions have substantially changed since the adoption of the subject regulation, nor can staff find any evidence of relevant conditions having changed. The creation of the 15% site coverage restriction on lots with an average slope greater than 30% was intended to result in "development that is more sensitive to the site with less site disturbance", as stated by the Town • Council in Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1994. Since staff has determined the restriction of site coverage to 15% on steep slopes does nothing to limit actual site disturbance, a more appropriate text amendment would be one which sets a limit on the extent a site is allowed to be disturbed when the average slope exceeds 30%. (Attachment B) 4. The extent to which the text amendment provides a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal development objectives; and, Staff has determined that the proposed text amendment does not provide a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations and is inconsistent with municipal development objectives. Again, the primary purpose of restricting the site coverage on steep slopes is to minimize site disturbance. The restriction does force owners and developers of steep lots to create a more vertical design, rather than one which is more horizontal, but it does not restrict the amount of a site that can be disturbed by excavation work or retention systems. If the intent of the subject regulation is to actually limit the amount of site disturbance created by constructing a home on a steep slope, than it should be amended to directly regulate site disturbance as a percentage of the lot size and in proportion to the steepness of the slope. 5. Such other factors and criteria the Commission and/or Council deems applicable to the proposed text amendment. • Section 12-21-14E.1, Vail Town Code, is meant to substantially decrease site disturbance for these 640 lots by giving applicants the incentive to locate structures close to the street, thereby minimizing a cut across a steep lot for 6 access. However, based upon the evidence and data collected by staff . (Attachment), this regulation alone does not unilaterally further the Town's development objectives. The additional text outlined in Section V of this memorandum will work toward protecting the values of the Town of Vail, and meeting its development objectives. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval with modifications of the proposed text amendment to the Vail Town Council. Staff's recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria found in Section IV of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented. Staff's suggested modification to the applicant's text amendment proposal entails the following additional (bold) text: 2. Not more than sixty percent (60%) of the total area of the development site may be disturbed by development activities related to residential construction and the area to be disturbed shall be encompassed by a limits of disturbance fence clearly depicted on a site plan for Design Review approval. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a • recommendation of approval with conditions to the Vail Town Council of this proposed text amendment, as modified above by staff the Department of Community Development recommends the Commission pass the following motion: "Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section IV of this memorandum, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds: 7. That the amendment, as modified by staff, is consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town; and 2. That the modified amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations; and 3. That the modified amendment promotes the health, safety, mora/s, and general welfare of the Town, and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. VI. ATTACHMENTS • A. Applicant's Request B. Staff Analysis 7 Attachment: A ISOM ~ ASSOCIATES ~ ~ Architecture Land Planning Project Management March 14, 2006 Town of Vail Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Re: Petition for an Amendment to the Municipal Code Dear Planning Staff: The following is a Petition for an Amendment to the Town of Vail Municipal Code. Specifically the request is to modify Section 12-21-14: Restrictions in Specific Zones on Excessive Slopes, Section E, Site coverage, is restricted to " 1. Not more than fifteen percent (15%) of the site area maybe covered by building...." "Where the average slope of the site beneath the existing or proposed structure and parking area is in access of thirty percent (30%)." It is requested that the fifteen percent (15%) site coverage be amended to twenty percent (20%). • The reason for the request is to allow for greater flexibility in the design and construction of residences on steep hill sides. With a fifteen percent (15%) site coverage regulation there is little room for design and construction of units once the garages have been included in the site coverage. The regulation forces people to build very close to the street and then build vertically either up or down to accommodate their dwelling unit in the fifteen percent (15%) site coverage. This forces designs to be very vertical on exposed steep sites. Amore horizontal design with a twenty percent (20%) site coverage would be less intrusive visually and more harmonious with the hill side. Sites of greater than 30% should step with the hillside which avoids excessive cuts and fills and also the cantilevered or post and beam decks. With the change in GRFA Regulations, the twenty percent (20%) would also allow homeowners to build additional square footage adjacent to their residences without going vertical which causes more of a visual impact. The advantages of this regulation adjustment aze many fold as follows: 1. A change from I S% to 20% site coverage for new construction allows for a much better design of the residential units that would be more compatible with the site by being able to step either down or up the sites and therefore not be a "slab" type construction were everyone is building directly above or below their garage structures on their sites. This is a real plus for the visual impacts • of building on steeper slopes and causes less disturbance to the site by being able to accommodate steeper grades with structures rather than just retaining walls. P.O. Box 9 Eagle, Colorado 81631 (970) 328-2388 FAX (970) 328-6266 • 2. The changing from 15% to 20% would allow for somewhere around 1500 sites in Vail to be expanded without going through variances which aze very difficult to do. Most people in Vail need an additional room whether it is for a dining room, additional bedroom for a new infant, new bathroom, addition to a house, or just a sunroom or deck to be constructed as use by right in the valley. This would allow people to expand buildings that presently cover 15% without tearing down their unit or having to take the roof off to go up higher. This change in the regulations makes a lot of sense for the existing home owners in Vail whether in East Vail, the Vail core or in West Vail. 3. The ability of approximately 1500 units to expand would be a great economic boon for Vail by encouraging the expansion of existing units rather than tear downs and would create a new vitality for construction in the valley. 4. The adoption of a new regulation to go from 15% to 20% would also encourage purchasing existing houses that are now 30 to 40 years old and either remodeling or tearing them down to replace the structure. Some of the • older houses aze of poor quality construction and would benefit from this regulation. 5. There is no down side to approving the regulation change from 15 to 20% site coverage on steeper slopes. There is only an economic benefit to the Town and revitalization of older neighborhoods. A brief history of the project is as follows: 1. Met with staff in December, 2004, who recommended a Variance to add 100 square feet onto an existing residence at 2672 Cortina Lane in West Vail. 2. February, 2005, Variance turned down by the Planning Commission. They did not want to set a president. Recommended an amendment to the zoning to allow for 20% site coverage. 3. April 11, 2005, the Planning Commission recommended unanimously to amend zoning regulations to allow for 20% site coverage on sites greater than 30% slope. 4. June 7, 2005, Town of Vail denied the request. • The change in text is for "locals" to solve problems on their residences by allowing for small additions on their houses and better site compatibility. The Town of Vail recently gave a bonus in square footage to residential properties in Ordinance No. 14-2004, but did not allow for the use of this Ordinance by increasing lot coverage on hillside lots. - ~~ An analysis by the Staff and the applicant showed that the 15% site coverage actually caused more site disturbance than 20% coverage. The reason is it takes more of the sites surface areas to get back to grade than using additional building coverage to absorb the grade change. A structure can have a 10 foot grade change, retaining walls can only be 3 or 4 feet and terraced. Attached are photos along Vail Ridge Subdivision showing the problem. Also attached is the application and a filing fee of $1300.00 If there are any questions concerning this application, please contact this office. Sincerely yours, ~- l~ - '~ Stephe ~ som Cc: Helmet Reiss K423TownotV ai 1031006 • • Attachment: B Analysis of the Potential Correlations between Site Coverage and Site Disturbance • April 24, 2006 Address Lot Size Maximum Allowable Actual Site Disturbed Difference Site Coverage Coverage Area 1290 Westhaven Circle 30,872 15% 12.40% 37.5% 25.1% 815 Potato Patch 26,223 15% 13% 66% 53% 1724 Geneva Drive 18,185 15% 8.7% 34.9°1° 26.2% 796 West Forest Road 46,642 15% 8.6% 25.5% 16.9% 1397 Vail Valley Drive 25,739 15% 14.6% 91.5% 76.9% 1479 Aspen Grove Lane 20,647 15% 11.9% 62.2% 50.3% 2735 Snowberry ' 52,982 15% 6.7% 26.5% 19.8% 1310 Greenhill Court 23,731 15% 10.5% 38% 27.5% 1390 Greenhill Court 33,611 15% 12.4% 37% 24.6% 166 Forest Road 21,386 15% 10.6% 41.2% 30.6% 1701 E Buffehr Creek Road 28,357 20% 10.8% 39.9% 29.1 3828 Bridge Road 12,980 20% 14.9% 60% 45.1% 4916 Juniper Lane 22,568 20% 18.8% 68.1 % 49.3% 245 East Forest Road 20,820 20% 19.6% 76.2% 56.6% 34 Beaver Dam Road 20,909 20% 14.9% 59% 44.1 197 Rockledge Road 26,190 20% 18.7% 67% 48.3% 100 Vail Road 23,086 20% 17% 56% 3g% 778 Potato Patch 20,821 20% 19.7% 78.5% 58.8% 758 Potato Patch 17,798 20% 17.3% 58.3% 41 395 Mill Creek Circle 18,917 20% 19.4% 90.7% 71.3% • 1187 Vail Valley Drive 12,824 20% 13% 84.6% 71.6% AVERAGES 25,014 N/A 13.9% 57.0°!° 43.1% The table shown above gives examples of actual lots in one of the four subject zone districts (SFR, HR, R, and PS), the allowable and actual site coverage as percentages of the lot size, the disturbed area as a percentage of the lot size, and the difference between the actual site coverage percentage and the disturbed area percentage. The disturbed area percentages were derived from digitizing the "limit of disturbance" fencing depicted on each approved site plan and expressing the square footage of that area as a percentage of the total square footage of the lot size. As evidenced in the data, the average disturbed area for lots with and without average slopes underneath the building footprint in excess of thirty percent (30%) is fifty-seven percent (57%) of the lot size on an averaged size lot of 25,014 square feet. Given the fact there is not a significant difference between site disturbance percentages among Pots restricted to fifteen percent (15%) site coverage and those restricted to twenty percent (20%) site coverage, it is apparent the subject regulation does not achieve its goal of limiting site disturbance through further restricting site coverage down to fifteen percent (15%) on what are defined as steep slopes. Therefore, as a result of this analysis, staff has proposed to introduce new language to the Hazard Regulations which will limit the amount a site with slopes in excess of thirty percent (30%) may be disturbed to an area not to exceed sixty percent (60%) of the lot size. The average site disturbance, as depicted in the table above, is fifty-seven percent (57%) in this • study, and staff has rounded that number up to sixty percent (60%) for the sake of clarity. MEMORANDUM • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 24, 2006 SUBJECT: A request for a final review of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for an amendment to an existing platted building envelope, located at 1722 Buffehr Creek Road/Lot 5, Block A, Lia Zneimer Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0025) Applicant: Crack of Noon, L.P., represented by KH Webb Architects Planner: Elisabeth Eckel Reed I. SUMMARY The applicant, Crack of Noon, L.P., represented by KH Webb Architects, is requesting a final review of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for an amendment to an existing platted building envelope, located at 1722 Buffehr Creek Road/Lot 5, Block A, Lia Zneimer Subdivision. . If approved, this request would result in the enlargement of the building envelope by 125 square feet to accommodate a void space at the southern elevation of the residence that was created because of poor soil conditions found onsite. Staff is recommending denial of this application subject to the findings and criteria outlined in Section VIII of this memorandum. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant, Crack of Noon, L.P., represented by KH Webb Architects, is requesting final review of an amended final plat Amended Final Plat of Lot 5, Block A, Lia Zneimer Subdivision pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, to increase the size of the platted building envelope located upon Lot 5 within Block A of the Lia Zneimer Subdivision. A description of the applicant's request; a vicinity map of the property; reduced copies of the existing and proposed site plan, floor plans, and elevations; and the proposed amended final plat are attached for reference (Attachments A, B, C, and D). III. BACKGROUND The original development plan for the Lia Zneimer Subdivision (and its sister subdivision, the Eleni Zneimer Subdivision) was drafted in 1980 within Eagle County jurisdiction as a Planned Unit Development (PUD). At that time, the PUD was a part of Phase VI of "The Valley" Subdivision. The area was then annexed into the Town the following year, at • which time a development plan was drafted by the developer and the Town of Vail as a part of the annexation agreement. At that time, the development plan allowed for twenty six (26) units and 77,150 square feet of GRFA for both subdivisions. In the annexing ordinance, Residential Cluster Zoning was applied to both the Eleni and Lia Zneimer Subdivisions. • In the fall of 1990, the Planning and Environmental Commission unanimously approved an amendment to the approved PUD from Eagle County, which allowed for the ability to construct 13 single-family dwelling units with acaretaker/employee housing unit in conjunction with each single-family dwelling unit. A total of 55,500 square feet of GRFA was approved for the 13 single-family dwelling units and an additional 10,400 square feet was approved for the 13 potential caretaker/employee housing units, which number was devised to allot eight hundred (800) square feet per caretaker/EHU. In 1992, the development plan was once again amended, which included the platting of building envelopes for each of the lots within the Lia Zneimer Subdivision. In order to guide the placement of the envelopes, the PEC recommended that a separation between the road and the building envelope of at least 35 feet was required. The approval included a provision for platted building envelopes of 4500 square feet (50' x 90'), for the residences to be constructed to the south of Buffehr Creek Road. Additionally, Staff found that the building envelopes were platted in specific locations, not only to maintain a certain distance from the road, but in order to preserve existing vegetation. Text found from the approval granted for the 50' x 90' building envelopes by the Planning and Environmental Commission on August 10, 1992, explains the intent of placement of the envelopes through the following condition, which was one of seven linked to that approval: "The trees identified in this memo, which were used to determine the location of the building envelope boundaries, may not be destroyed during the development • of each envelope. If a tree is destroyed, the applicant shall replace it with another tree or trees which provide a similar amount of screening. The DRB shall determine a practical and reasonable number and species needed in order to achieve the same effect." The building envelopes were expected to accommodate all structural aspects of the residences, according to the following text from that approval: "...each envelope will be adequate for all of the future construction without developing standards for encroachments into the open space. All roof eaves, porches, decks, etc. will be contained within the envelope...it is intended that these building envelopes are large enough That any roof overhangs, porches, balconies, etc. should not need to encroach info the area outside the building envelope." However, the proposal allowed the Design Review Board the purview to approve modifications of the building envelope, though not in excess of fifteen feet. In August of 2004, an application was submitted to the Town proposing a minor interior remodel and several changes to the facade of the (then) List Family Residence. The scope of the project grew substantially due to the sale and subsequent purchase of the property, and the on December 17, 2004, the Design Review Board reviewed the extensive remodel, facade changes, and the reconfiguration of the existing building envelope to accommodate some proposed new living space and wing walls and unanimously approved the application with the following condition: • "Prior to receiving a TCO from the Planning Department, the applicant shall • ensure that an amended plat, reflecting the new 4500 square foot building envelope configuration, is on record with Eagle County." At the time of this approval, no soils issues had yet been identified and the applicant was certain of the ability to reconfigure the envelope such that no increase in size would be needed. On April 10, 2005, Staff approved a "changes to approved plans application" for a new staircase at the rear of the home, the reduction in size of the wing walls, and several other aspects, again with the following condition: "Per origins! application, prior to receiving a TCO from the Planning Department, the applicant shall ensure that an amended plat, reflecting the new 4500 square foot building envelope configuration, is on record with Eagle County." Furthermore, on June 10, 2005, Staff approved another "changes to approved plans application" that included a request for a change to the building materials and the usage of a full six hundred (600) square foot garage deduction. Staff approved the application with the following condition: "Per original application, prior to receiving a TCO from the Planning Department, the applicant shall ensure that an amended plat, reflecting the new 4500 square foot building envelope configuration, is on record with Eagle County." • The last "changes to approved plans application" to be approved by Staff occurred on August 29, 2005 and included the submittal of a lighting plan for the residence and the revision of several interior crawl space areas. Staff did not place the cond'+tion on the proposal again, but noticed on the site plan that a void space had been constructed beneath the entryway outside of the building envelope. The applicant was questioned and a soils report was submitted showing that poor soils had necessitated the creation of the void space in order to support the terrace above. Staff reiterated that no encroachments of this sort would be allowed outside of the building envelope and that the building envelope would have to be reconfigured to include this encroachment. Staff further suggested to the applicant that the space be filled with concrete, or another form of structural fill, so as not to be considered GRFA, since only three (3) square feet of GRFA remained available (see zoning analysis in Section VI). The applicant responded that the space must remain partial head height and have access via a door, per the building code. Upon further study by the applicant, it was realized that no room remained within the existing building envelope to include this void space. At that time, the applicant decided to submit an application for an Amended Final Plat in order to expand the building envelope. IV. ROLES OF REVIEWING BOARDS Exemption Plat Planning and Environmental Commission: • Action: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for final approval, approve with modifications, or disapprove the plat. Specifically the code states in Section 13-12-3C, Review and Action on Plat: • The planning and environmental commission shall review the plat and associated materials and shall approve, approve with modifications or disapprove the plat within twenty one (21) days of the first public hearing on the exemption plat application or the exemption plat application will be deemed approved. A longer time period for rendering a decision maybe granted subject to mutual agreement between the planning and environmental commission and the applicant. The criteria for reviewing the plat shall be as contained in section 13-3-4 of this title. Design Review Board: Action: The Design Review Board has NO review authority on an exemption plat, but must review any accompanying Design Review Board application. Town Council: The Town Council is the appeals authority for an exemption plat review procedure in accordance with Section 13-3-5C, Vail Town Code, which reads as follows: Within fen (10) days the decision of the Planning and Environmental Commission on the final plat shall be transmitted to the Council by the staff. The Council may appeal the decision of the Planning and Environmental Commission within seventeen (17) days of the Planning and Environmental Commission's action. if Council appeals the Planning and Environmental Commission's decision, the Council shall hear substantially the same presentation by the applicant as was heard at the Planning and Environmental Commission hearing(s). The Council • shall have thirty (30) days to affirm, reverse, or affirm with modifications the Planning and Environmental Commission decision, and the Council shall conduct the appeal at a regularly scheduled Council meeting. Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided and plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines. Staff provides a staff memo containing background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS TOWN OF VAIL ZONING CODE TITLE 13: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS (in part) 13-2-2 DEFINITIONS EXEMPTION PLAT.• The platting of a portion of land or property that does not fall within the definition of a "subdivision", as contained in this section. • 4 VI. 13-12 EXEMPTION PLAT REVIEW PROCEDURES 13-12-1: PURPOSE AND INTENT: The purpose of this chapter is to establish criteria and an appropriate review process whereby the planning and environmental commission may grant exemptions from the definition of the term "subdivision" for properties that are determined to fall outside the purpose, purview and intent of chapters 3 and 4 of this title. This process is intended to allow for the platting of property where no additional parcels are created and conformance with applicable provisions of this code has been demonstrated. 13-12-2: EXEMPTIONS IN PROCEDURE AND SUBMITTALS: "Exemption Plats", as defined in section requirements related to preliminary plan applicants may be required to submit an title 12, chapter 12 of this code. 13-2-2 of this title, shall be exempt from procedures and submittals. Exemption plat environmental impact report if required by 13-12-3: PLAT PROCEDURE AND CRITERIA FOR REVIEW: The procedure for an exemption plat review shall be as follows: A. Submission Of Proposal; Waiver Of Requirements: The applicant shall submit two (2) copies of the proposal following the requirements for a final plat in subsection 13- 3-66 of this title, with the provision that certain of these requirements may be waived by the administrator and/or the planning and environmental commission if determined not applicable to the project. B. Public Hearing: The administrator will planning and environmental commission adjacent property owners and public notic 13-3-6B1 of this title. schedule a public hearing before the and follow notification requirements for e for the hearing as found in subsection C. Review And Action On Plat: The planning and environmental commission shall review the plat and associated materials and shall approve, approve with modifications or disapprove the plat within twenty one (21) days of the first public hearing on the exemption plat application or the exemption plat application will be deemed approved. A longer time period for rendering a decision may be granted subject to mutual agreement between the planning and environmental commission and the applicant. The criteria for reviewing the plat shall be as contained in section 13-3-4 of this title. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Land Use Zoninq North: Residential Residential Cluster District East: Residential Residential Cluster District West: Forest Service NA South: Open Space Natural Area Preservation District .J VII VIII SITE ANALYSIS Address: Legal Description: Zoning: Land Use Plan Designation: Current Land Use: Lot Size: Building Envelope Size: 1722 Buffehr Creek Road • Lot 5, Block A, Lia Zneimer Subdivision Residential Cluster Medium Density Residential Residential 47,090 square feet (1.08 acres) 4,500 square feet Standard Allowed/Required Existing Proposed Setbacks (min): per building envelope Height (max.): 30 ft./33 ft. 33' no change Density (max): 1 dwellings +EHU 1 dwelling +EHU no change GRFA (max): 5,264 sq. ft. 5,261 sq. ft. Site coverage (max.): 4,500 sq. ft. <4,500 sq. ft. Parking (min.): 4 spaces 5 spaces APPLICATION CRITERIA AND FINDINGS no change 4,619 sq. ft. no change The approved development plan from October 22, 1990, included provisions for platted building envelopes on each of the seven lots located within the Lia Zneimer Subdivision. • The following is the text from that approved development plan discussing the platted building envelopes: "Building envelopes indicated upon the approved site plan may be modified with approval of the DRB based upon detailed review of an individual dwelling unit. The DRB shall lind that the modification to any building envelope does not substantially result in any negative impacts upon the site, adjoining property, or have any adverse impact upon required geologic hazard considerations. If an association of homeowners within the project is formed, any modification of a building envelope shall also conform to the rules and regulations adopted by the association. Any modification shall not exceed 15 feet and in no case shall any structure be built in the 20 foot setbacks shown on the approved development plan." Staff has made the determination that the modification of an envelope of 15 feet or less can be made if the DRB makes the findings stated in the above paragraph. This proposal includes a request to shift a portion of the platted building envelope on Lot 5 from areas along the north elevation to areas along the northeast and west of the envelope. The existing building envelope on Lot 5 measures 4,500 square feet and the proposed revised (shifted and enlarged) building envelope measures 4,619 square feet. c: On December 17, 2004, the Design Review Board reviewed the proposed changes to the residence, including the revision to the shape of the 4500 square foot building envelope. The Board unanimously approved the application with the following condition: Prior fo receiving a TCO from the Planning Department, the applicant shall ensure that an amended plat, reflecting the new 4500 square foot building envelope configuration, is on record with Eagle County. The Design Review Board has not seen the proposal for a revised building envelope size at this point since it is not within their purview to review any increases in the size of a building envelope. However, this has been made a condition of approval should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to support the proposal as submitted. Staff believes the intent of the building envelopes approved with the amended development plan, was to protect existing vegetation and land forms. Though this intent will continue to be met even with the increase in size and revision of shape to the existing building envelope, the language stating the nature of the building envelope was disclosed to the applicant on November 30, 2004, before the project was ever reviewed by the Design Review Board. Additionally, the condition of Design Review Board approval and Staff's continued reminder of such condition keeps Staff from supporting the proposal as presented. It was Staff's suggestion that the space be filled with concrete or another form of structural fill to prevent the request presented today. Exemption Plat (Defers to Section 13-3-4, which is as followsl: The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of this Chapter, the Zoning Ordinance and other pertinent regulations that the Planning and Environmental Commission deems applicable. Due consideration shall be given to the recommendations made by public agencies, utility companies and other agencies consulted under subsection 13-3-3C above. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall review the application and consider its appropriateness in regard to Town policies relating to subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, environmental integrity and compatibility with fhe surrounding land uses and other applicable documents, effects on the aesthetics of the Town. IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends denial of the request for an amendment to an existing platted building envelope, located at 1722 Buffehr Creek Road/Lot 5, Block A, Lia Zneimer Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. This recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria in Section VIII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to deny this exemption plat, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: The Planning and Environmental Commission denies the Amended Final Plat. Lot 5, • Block A. Lia Zneimer Subdivision pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for an amendment to an existing platted building envelope located of 1722 Buffehr Creek Road, Lot 5, Block A, Lia Zneimer Subdivision and setting forth details in regard thereto. Amended Final Plat • Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to deny this exemption plat, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings: That the application is not in compliance with the intent and purposes of the Subdivision Regulations, the Zoning Ordinance and other pertinent regulations that the Planning and Environmental Commission deems applicable. 2. That the application is not appropriate in regard to Town policies relating to subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, environmental integrity and compatibility with the surrounding land uses and other applicable documents, and effects on the aesthetics of the Town. Amended Final Plat Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this exemption plat, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: The Planning and Environmental Commission approves the Amended Final Plat, Lot 5, Block A, Lia Zneimer Subdivision pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat . Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for an amendment to an existing platted building envelope located at 1722 Buffehr Creek Road, Lot 5, Block A, Lia Zneimer Subdivision and setting forth details in regard thereto. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this plat amendment request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings: 1. That the application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of the Subdivision Regulations, the Zoning Ordinance and other pertinent regulations that the Planning and Environmental Commission deems applicable. 2. That the application is appropriate in regard to Town policies relating to subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, environmental integrity and compatibility with the surrounding land uses and other applicable documents, and effects on the aesthetics of the Town. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this plat amendment request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following condition: 1. This approval is contingent upon Design Review Board approval of the request as presented to the Planning and Environmental Commission. • . X. ATTACHMENTS A. Applicant's Request B. Vicinity Map C. Reduced copies of Site Plan, Floor Plans, and Elevations D. Copy of the Amended Final Plat • Attachment: A Applicant's Reauest DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT: The project is a remodel to an existing residence that was approved by the Design Review Board previously. The Design Review Board was given the right by the Lia Zneimer Subdivision Covenants to approve modifications to the Building Envelopes. The current submittal is to ratify the previous submittal and Design Review Board approval into an Amended Building Envelope that will be recorded at the county. The Lia Zneimer Subdivision was platted in 1990 prior to the revisions to GRFA that occurred in 2004. The current owner of lot 5 has undergone a substantial renovation under the current GRFA guidelines and has been approved for modifications to his Building Envelope by the Design Review Board. The proposed final envelope has been modified to include all areas that include enclosed space, roof overhangs, and full height buttress walls The language related to the Building Envelopes states"...it is intended that these building envelopes are large enough that any roof overhangs, porches, balconies, etc...SHOULD NOT need to encroach into the area outside the building envelope." The actual inhabitable, interior, conditioned living areas of the house fit comfortably within the 4,500 square foot building envelope originally allowed for this site. The questionable area that requires the application for this exemption plat is an area that was made necessary because of poor soil conditions found on the site. The inclusion of this new void space does not affect the design of the approved plans for the building nor does it affect the bulk and mass of the building in any way. The void space that is now being requested to fall within the building envelope is an unconditioned, uninhabitable volume that simply requires access to be compliant with the 2003 International Building Code. The proposal will not modify or change compatibility of the subdivision or properties compatibility with other properties in the vicinity as the amendment puts an element or elements that exist on other properties in the vicinity within the building envelope. On other properties, this same elements exists, but they are not required to be in the envelope unless they have void space below. C ~ ~ f, -~ C ~ L_ 3Y'~ n ~ v~ ~ ~ ~. ~ 1' ~`. „%~ F ,,;~ ~'. ?~ t,: :~ .: ~, ~ ~/~ ~,~~ ~ ~ a'.,, ~ ~- \i! Y~ ~ Y O O i 'S ~t ~5., ~ ~, r e t .~ > ~. w w:~z-. ~~~ .~ N ~~;. ».'. ~ `~ .a ~ . ,.z _L ^~'° ~ .-. N~ Cl. ~ 1' ` ~,~,,.~,~ ~ ~ y .a. ,~ rr '~ ~ +~~.. ,~ ~~ ~~ ,< ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ .~ d ~~ .~ s _ ~ o ~ ~ r= ~ ~ I IIP~ ~ i~ ~.` N ~' ~~ + ~ L ~ ~ ~ r 4_ ^~ ~ rar, fir. 4,~ CS e R'. k' //~~'~ i' ~ ~~t <C' ri"~, ~ _4',~ ~ -~ ~,~- ~'~~- ~ r ' Y,~ ~ ~ , "` 1 ~'~ ~. ~(Yti _ L .f, w r ~~ ~ ~~ ~- *i -~,. ~ t~ '~ ~,,~ t 4 C ~R ~ ~ ~ t ~ ~ ~ iY O Rk ry ~,uY.1 «' C ., y i ~~~TTT'~ vh. s~S` `V 1 . ~ t ,a ' 5~7~ ~, .`i ~ s~~~~: Attachment: B +^ ~'~V:~ , ,.. ~ ~ $ gz~ Eat ~~ ~~ r., ~ 3 ~~ ~v° ~> >€ as ~ (~ L LL 0 w ri ., 'tr ~ _. gip' ~ ~* 'r' -,, ~ L , s ~~~ ~ ~`~. ~x et ~ .4 ~ ~~, r C; yri ~ ~~t ~ ~ ~''~ i~-r' ~~~ ~' i-371M~~'~ t~1 ~ t. r~~l~ ~ * ttt 'bWV; y" `IIIEEE rrr ~ 4 ~ r{~~,. :i . ,w k~ `» ~~.*~r ~G y~~ «r1i~ ''~ ~LLA~'h 7'(tr~1 `_,r~f,~ t,^~}!,? .C ~ .ix ~ ~ T .+,a .l-~+rrk5+iw., ~" •~. ~~31)'L'+i4~.^ ~~e~.?:~:Y~--'n,! ~~f~~ _ ~ ~~ .: r', K*' 411' _ ~ ..~ p i 7. ~ U ~ Odli'11/~L6 ' ' S QQ~!!~~0) 1!~h ~ YII 3X95 lli4, OYOY 39YINPdf NNOt [S/ ~ 9£EE•Zb4.5L6•XVd 9L8L•bb4.5L6 M33H)8H3i)O8ii11 •, •• ~' ~r ~d~f~~a~~y~f9 ~ ~ ~ Z066L • sexal • osed 13 • Peob w2! LOLL N O I 1 d A 0 N 3~ a d q q a M y ~ '~NI '1~311H~ad .l3aOl tlNlladW W= ° z 'd'1` N OON ~0 ~~~~~ W > oa V W _ a ~ Q Q 4 O N D aC Q f .o_•o~ f o o ~~ ~~ Illllu ii ~-± ~i fir, / .. N--~--~~--II'; x z 0 Q W W Q W z v~ X w 0 00 • • i (dflf('((YL(f N6I'((IL(f QQ~OIO, ~IqA o LS911 f0 " Wf ' f I[ yfAf ' IfYA dNM 39YINONI N1NNf (ff 9£E£•Zb9.546•Xb'd 9484•bb9.446 k331DHH333H8iiLl .. sd•slsal(yssN a ~ Z066L • sexal • osed 13 • Peob w!b 4044 N O I l d A 0 N 3~ ~ .., ~ m = 9 4 M y~ •JNI '1J311H~21tL A3aOl tM1121t/W `~ z 'd'1~ N OON ~0 N~b~~ ~~••W = oe~~ aC OC 6 d w IL 4 v~ D OC „0-,Ol ~ O 4~ O JI ,~II'~~ i i ~~~ II II If 11 I ~I ~ III ~'~'~ J ~~i ~'I ~ ~ ~~ '~ J.~ i ~~J~ ! ~r'~ '~~~il ii,';III, ';'' 'i, j!' I' ~!il I~~ ~~~ ~~ll~ ~a ~-~~ I I I I ,~ .! ,0- K O W O ~, ~~ b I~~ } a --- ____I~ ----~ ----~~ ----+-, -----I --- ~-, ~~_J z O Q W J W 0 z z_ W 0 • • • (~mrttrou W6CLLY~11 OOtlN010] 71VA tvn m ~ wr' f¢ vmt' uax mm 3friemf xmos [se A33NJ BN3~~II8 LiCi 9£££•Zb5.966•XV~ 9L86•bV9.9L6 a ~ : r ~ e r 1 9 „ c Z066L • sexal • osed l3 • Peoa wIa X046 q q a M ~ ~ ~ ~ '~NI ~1~311H~2iV A32iOl tM1121`dW N O I l d A 0 N 3~ 'd'1`NOON ~0 ~~d~~ a 0 0 ii z 6 r,~ I~~' ~I~ .a-.o~ rc 0 0 ~~ ~I ~~~~ IPA III!III~I ~~,~ ~ o •• a- z F- °° c Wz - -, ~ ,. W - o ~~aQ ~o~o Z O \~ ~.~..~ ~.~..~ V 1 W z w 0 ~~ • Gh1Arulnu anrwmc W IY tll' 71A' 111 YIIM' IfYA OYOtl 79YllIUtl1 HIAOf ffA Yd~sAYalf gYAo g q a M u~ OOVNOIO) 'IIVh 9E££•Zb9.56s•XH~ 9686.6b9.466 B338J8H33308LZi! ZOS6L • sexal • osed 13 • PeO23 WR! 6066 N 0 (1 d A 0 N 3 ~ •~NI ~1~31!H~21t/.132!Ol `dNili!dW 'd'1`NOON ~0 ~~d~~ of ~( Z 6 li ~ I II t ~ n~ i\ ~n~ ~~ _ ~I ... -~~~ ii ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~ i fl III .o-.o~ ( t't--------- II II II I ~-- I I III ~ ( ul n nl ( ( ( I f I I ~ O ry O • '' Z ~' °° c V Z -. ?i w 0 4 ~~~a W o ~ o z O Q w J w O z ~~ w 0 • • • (Jmrurms Yeettrols lSr1Y Ql' 11/A' fll 31NS' 1SNS OYPY 3771NOYI HINdf (f6 A dslAalfy~Aa ggaM'y'~ OOtl8010) 71tl~ ° A33878H33308 ZZiI .. ~ 9£££•Zir9.946 •X~/~ 9484•i~VS•546 , • • 9-• Z Z066L • sexal • osed 13 • PeOa w!a 4044 N O I l d A 0 N 3~ ~ m ° '~NI '1~311H~23f/ 1.3NO1 t/NIl21t/W .., z .. ,., 'd'1` NOON ~0 ~~d~~ oaW~ ~~sa W do~o o - ~~ I ~~~ ~ ~ ~l i I~ I I I I I I I i - -- I -- ~ .~ I ~ ~ - I I I I I I ----r~ I I I I I I I I I ' i I - - ~ I I I I I ~ I I I I I L I I I ~ ~------~ - II --r 2.1 I I I Iu II lj I I I I -_ ____-_ --LJ m 5~ u? w ='a J V :`O O %~K OQ ~~ WZ O~~ ~~S 0 Q W J W a w 0 0 II ao • • • 14596 ['ll/-lf 0{{272/Vlf ls9le m ~ wf' f it aunt ~ uvn mor a9raxmr xmac cn ~ e• s r~ a r y y l r o 9EE£•Zb4.966 •X1'/4 9681.•bb9.866 Z066L • sexa~, • osed 13 • Peoa w!?1 60LL q q a M ~ y ~ ~ '~NI '1~311H~2iV A32iOl dNIlaVW 0 a a W 00tla010] 'lltlh tl33a~ aeliiaa zw NOi.IdA0N3~ 'd'1`NOON ~0 ~~d~~ .~~. '• ,;, la a= ~= za ~a d ~+ ~+ 1 t o I I E ~ Q Z r_ ' I m ~ ~ ~~ ! 1 o Z ` I a GQ I ~ N ~N a + I W ~ ~LL i o ~ sa I u~ rv3 { -- I 0 3 as -- --L~ 3 o ao ry 4 ~- •• m z ~ o W Z .. -, ~ w O 6 ~-._ CC ~ ~ Q tt1 d O H ~ eC ~ 3 ~~ ~ z '" f+ ~+ I I II I I I I I I I I~ i I I I I i It II I I~ I I a ~`, V I I I 'I W I I I a~ I ~ ' ~ ~' ~~ II ,~ . I I -- z~ I I I 1 ~' I I I I I I r I I I I I I _ I I I I~ I { I t . ,,, -1---~'~ I I I ---- 1--~ I I o' Q w J W OC ~I WI LL 0 00 tdsa[7umt we[usrou esrre m'rra'rrs ssms' es[x mm rsruml woos [u rd•ssra~syrso 9gaM'~I~l O y; '~ `r o ~~~G E " w a~ ~ Z Z w ~~;< aoo a o°zF ui fgc?o ~ oa~a=3 of z=zz z ~wda vi 3 _O°oa z ~ ~ N~~~ ~ ~~=uuu w~~z~z r- ~°, 5 -'~fEf o~~ ?~~=:_> w ~ u ~ 9£££•Zb5.946•Xtl~ 9484•bb4.946 Z066L • sexal • osed 13 ~ peob w!2! LOL4 '~NI ~1a311H~iIV A32101 `dNlladW z `~ V i< 0 0 m~ W Z it Su g o ry oava6lo~ 71vn a3~a~ an3iina zul •• .. a- NOI.tdA0N3~ ~°° o v z _ ~'d'1`NOON ~0 X~d~~ ~~••~ = 0 CC CJ¢ 4 w d ~ N G ~ J W Q 7 ~ a ° ~' to LLo ~uui °m z¢z z ,~,[ a Q w a ~ i ~ ; ~ w [~ Z .+ ~ a ~ z~N ~~ Qoa a vivo °> ~w o ~~Z yK 300 5°0 ~°od u u1VU mp ~~ m w 3 LaJ N N~ W ~ J + ----r~------ --r~ I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I i I ' I I I I I I I I I 1 ---r~ I I ~ I __.~~ i I I I I I I I ---tJ I I I I f I ~ I ~~ I I I I 1 I 3 1 i ~U~ ~ I 00o I I ____ _~~ I ~I ' s I I I I i r-~f-1 s 14- a W J ~.-• t!•) W W 0 ~ • • l$Stl{t'IIILI{ UffCltlVl{ 691101' Wf ' llt 11Nd' 1S1M oYMI 19tlLYDY11l11101 f5{ ldf 11 oll4tl to g9aM~4~~1 9£££•Zh5.546•X1f~ 9484.449.546 Z066L • sexal • osed 13 • Peon W21 4044 •~NI 11~311H~21d A3ilOl HNI121VW oa~toio) `IIVA M338) 8H33388 ZiLI NOIlbA0N3~ 'd'1`NOON ~0 11~d~~ ~~ W „I o Q I I I . - I ~ /.'~........~ ~~ rI p, ~~ V ~ i .iii j-~~'`~i Iii ~' .. ;a~ ~, Q 3 ~ ~ fl ( \\II I \ 3 z \ r ~ _ II ~o ~, ,~ a u I , ~n•I ~ !. ~~ a ~ ~.. .o-. ~~ ~ ~i 0 / ~ ~\ \~ l~~ cam. f~\\J'`~y'`/ i ~ ./ a \\ •~ - ~n ~ ~ ,~ _. I1 Inl ~ I~~1 II_ . I! ~ ' ~~ .. ~ I~~~,. II / ~ ~ \\~~i l~ .__ \\ ! IJ _ ; \\ ; ' Z rv ~ + -n~-rTrr 111111 Illlllt IIIIIII) IIIIIII ____ s~ I r' I ~ I ~ I I I I I I I I I I I ------------ s~----~~ I I I I I I I I I I I ~1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .I I I I ------------r -tJ i a~ _ I ' aQ m3 u° oQ Z ms 3 i ~w ` i'" f ~ I ~~a w Iu lcrra I i s~ I I I ~ ' _ I '1 a <3 I - as I LLo I a i o g~ I ~ ~ ~__~ 1 o ww f J ~ ~ ul^i 0 ~ vI I O Z~ V 7+ J F O I I I 6 I ( I I ~i I I I 1 I I n i I II I I I I JJ 1_ I i l~J -- I • _____ _~~--L~ I • I I I I I ~ ~ _ '1 •• m z 0 `I = - O 6 y,l I- T OC CC Q C W d D ... ~ 11t: I •, -- -tip I _~ I I I ----ZJ 0 Q W J W O ~I ~' 0 IO53{i'11171i6 71(Cll17l( LS1U m' AI(" f IS 31M15' ts1X DYRd 37YINOtl3 HIAOS (S( ,e',~„Y~y~„ ~ 8£££•Zb4.546•Xtld 9484•bb9.546 Z066L • sexaj • osed t3 • Peo2i w!ii 4044 q q a M y ~ ~ '~NI '1~311H~aH.l3~lOl bT,llilt/W O O G I~ OOVa010] 71Y~ a~~a~ aa3iina uu NOIt~d110N3~ 'd'1`NOON ~0 ~~d~~ r -~ ~ I I ' I 'I' I I I '< ~~ I I t` I I I I II I I I I II II I I I I I I I I II I I ! I I I ! I I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I------------------- L-. - ~-I-------------- I I II 11II I I I I ~~ II I I II I I II I I I ' I I I I i I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II II I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I ( I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I i I I r----------J I II I r-----------1 I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I IL--------------------------JI L-----------------------------~ g c N }- N .• m a f_ o V Z .. 4 a u~. tl- s eC C ~ ¢ w 1 D v~ O ae: I _--~- I I I L_ J I I I I I I I r -~ I I L J I I I I I I I I r ~ I I L J I I I I I I I f -l ----~- -- -I I J _---, I ---~?------+ I L__J z Q ,,~/ ~.L 0 O .J r~ V z (.~} x w 0 • • r g o ~ N `, Vff6t~l(/Tl6 0(6L'((iD[6 uu~~ ~ ~QYa~~O~ I~d~ ~ 1f911 (n' MI' flf 7tIM' UYA LIYfld 39YUIOY! NIAAf (fl M3397 9N3ilfl9 iitl •• 9EEE•Zb9.5L6 •XtJ~ 9186 •bb9.546 •, aosst~Ni 1~ a a ii~ ~ad~ a N O I i d A 0 N 3~ 0 Z q q a M~~ avw ~ 3 - 3 o W 'd'1`N OON ~0 ~~~~a .. oaW~ ~~s~ W do~o a ILA i~ ~~i b~ ~i~ ~~ `' ~~ \~ ~~ ~ i11 ~J ~~ 0 I>~ z Q J C].. 0 J 0 z 0 U (~ z. f=' x w 0 I~ IdS9R'lll-lf -fll'lli-U lsrn m • ~nf 'ru font' uve mm 7-auroxl xlxm ru sd•sf~illyll- 9 4 a M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ N OOV80103 'IIVd a 9fi£E•Zb9.946•XH~ 9494•bb9.946 A33818N333118IiL1 •, Z066L~N1 '1~3tiH~21b' A321011~N121HW N o i i a n o N 3~ > z 0 ~m =. ~ .. W "d'1`NOON ~0 N~d~~ oaW~ ~~~a do~o I -------__' - -- ___ I - ------ -- -----------T -- - -__ I I ~ ~ ,~ I I i I ~~ ~. . I i I ,~ I I ' ~~ ~ ~ .I' I I I I ,~ `~ ~, i~ I I I ; ~ ,~ ~J I I i I I I i ~ I I I 1~--- ~ I I I I .\ ~ -~- --~ I I I 1 I .~ 1 I i~ ~ `. ~ O ,' 1 I Ir ~, I ~' 1 I II . , 1 I 1 I~-- -- ------------~ I IV , I~ -- ---- -- ----{ I 1 I ~ I ' I II 11~ ,' I `. I I I ' ~- I I i I ~ , ~~ I I I I ___ , I = ~ ~Y----I I i I I I/ I I I r~--- - ------~ ( 1 ~~ I ice- -~ /~- ----{--------~ I i I ~ I i / \I I 1 I I I ~__ / ~\ r ~ V I I f I I _ ,I,.~ I I i I -E ~~- I ~~ I I ~ ~ ,'' I I I I a l i ~ I I ~~ I ~' I I I I ' I ~, II ~~y II I! ; I ~`~ I I !~. '. I I I I '' --- ----- ------------------ I I I ~~}~ ~---- ;~ ~ I I I I I. i I l i -' I f ~ I I I I '~~ I I I ~~'~ 1 1 !~ ~i ~~ ~ I ~~ I I f l ; I j I ' !! I I ~~' j \~~ I I I I ~ I I -~ I l ~~~ ~ `~ I I I! I I I I i~ I I i~ I I I i~~, ! I ~ j I ~ I I ~'' I I I I I ~~ I I ~ I I VV I i t ri' I I I ~~\ I I ~1 I I ~ I ~' i `~ ~- i I ~ - - -L ,., ,,. I I I ~~ I I I I I i I I ~~~~ i~ ~ V I I I `. , ~ I II ~ I I ' `.\ It ,~' ~~ I I o 0 .- I II _____ a o ~ ~ E---- ------j I I ~---- ---- ---- ~ • `I II ~~ / I I ~ ~ , I ~~ I I I I I i- I r I I ~ ~I ~ I I ' I ~~ ~~ I ~ I I ~~ I ~ I - ~ I t I ~__-~ ~ ~. I I I ~ ' II `~ i I I I ~ II ~ I I I ' ' II I I I I II I I I I I I I i ,~ •~\ I I I ~ I + L-----------------~-------___-------____--------------------------J ~ • ~ Q J L1C O L!_ W z W~ eD OOWO10] 'IIVA ° I~na~uAntA w[rw>tu [fill D]' 7nA' 9K 311AS' 1fYA PIUY 79YINPNI NINOf [f6 9EEE•ZbS•946•X`d~ 9484•bb4.946 a33a~ aH3iina ZZL I .. .. ~, > 7 a • : 7 , . ~ . y 7 1 ^ Z066L • sexal • osed 13 • peob wlz{ 4044 ~ ~ N O I l d A 0 N 3~ ~- o ~ •~NI '1~311H~ilt/ A32101 vr,llab'W q q a M ~ ` W= N 'd'1 OON ~0 ~~d~~ oaW~ ~~aa w ~o~o ~l D I~ I .L-s .E-.5 .{II-.L `L I I ~~ I I I °o~~ o .oi I I ... ~~` w~ •• , II ~ I I I I 1 I I I II I I I -~ I I I I - I I V II I I 1 I - I - - li I I `~R~E ~ ~~ ~n~;~;; ~ ~ I 1 I i~i(= H ~~[~ I I I I 4 ~s I I ~ 5 II-L--1 ------------~ ol~ ~ ~.E,,,,.,o-J '1 w.{6- it ~ I I I ~~ I ~ ~~ II I 1 I I I I I I I I I i I I ii ~ II i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t I ~ f-------- ~------------71 I r------ 1~-----1 ~-----~ i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II II I --------------------JI II II IL------ II ---J II II II II II II II II it II II II _ _ - II II II II II II II II II II II I II I I II` II I __~ _-_--___ ~. N ,°.I i r `- J J • ~I ~.~ - z Q J J /~ 1~ ~~ O 0 I~ E b N I~3Y6L'll/Tl/ OlfClllLlf ' ' ' OQ~O'~Q~ ~nYA C lflN W !1[ 11105 7111 1SiM OYOY 77Y1NOY1 NIAOf [Sf 9E££•ZbS•S66•Xt/d 9686•bbS•S66 A338]NH3LLH8ZZL1 Ia•YIl.1ry7,n a M' Z066L • sexa ose . ~o WI 1 dl3 P 21 216066 N O I l b A 0 N 3~ •• m z y~ 4 9 •~NI •1'J311H~21F/ 1.32101 HNI121dW _ u z o 'd'1` N OON ~0 ~Jd~~ oQ ~~••~ = CC aC Q 4 W d D N G7 CC 1 fJ OQO wV~ F-arv d ~uio v~i3o~°o w~~ u ~z~ do^ <~m~~~~~ ~~ 0 W~~ w~ b~ ~~ v w U aa. f~z _ ~ar II .n w ri z i~ ¢~ rv = oZ ~_ ~~ s~ xw ~~ ~r °z ~~ - ~a ~~. _., . :~ sz< I ~ - I <EZ - - I -1 °' _~~ I w~ ~~~ I ,.: i ~ r: I ~`al I I 0 N a ~/ _ ~ no ~ . n{4-.E I .I „q'•Z I .e-.Z I~ O ~,~'~ ~y + \ „ I in~ ~ ~ \ r II \ u ,. t I II ~ I I ~~~ I I I~ II ~ ~ ~ ' doll e „~, I I go I z I E~~w ~ m~ ~ ~ O f°.i x w u~ rv w2a ~~ 9-.E I o "~w17 I u„ '.~,5> 3 3 ~ ~ ~ I z I w -~i i ~ ~ Jw~Ia ~~ ~ I .n I I II w ( / e ii ~ ~ I I / II m ~£II / I .{L-~£L ~ w I I •n a lI / \ '^ ~ ~, wm _._,~ ti 3 ~- r r w..,. v, Y ~ ~ cl 4 > >¢ rv ~w .+ z°1 zs N ' w - .6- Ili a rv rn II~ Of + I _ N M }~ 9 Q ~ N ~a:9 r • ~Fj~Q rv.w V=6 mg ao /{{T1~'j. ~j' L'_ % ~ M µZ1 Q ~ W 6 y~~ „M1• ~ 1- ~a IF/~i .E ~ ~ nd3Fm•f iu~ ~~ ~~~N ~.,~ ~~ - O O \ Il • • Qz J z O O O ~_ N Ws76relrou M6Cf1/1116 OOtlN010] 71tl~ 1571! W' 8/l' Iif 3llA5 " I%A UYXX 7917XPdf XIIIM ffd 9EE£•Zb4.446•XN.~ 9494•bb4.546 A33>u8A]iiA8zi11 •. sd'tls~ligffo ~ Y \ t .~, 9 g e M_ y~ Z066L • sexal • osed 13 • P~oa 1~ 4044 N 0 I 1 d A 0 N 3~ ~ m '~N~'1~311H~Zld.l32iOl 1121`dW z ~ 'd'1'NOQN ~0 x~d~~ oaW~ r eC eC Q d w f1_ D v+ O OG ~~ 4~ / 1\ \ \ o~C O f a K 7 ' a ~ 3 m Y ~ ~ w U ~ a O O z i ~~. '~ i _I' •Ft,~ fi' ~ .1 II __.1 u L-_1 ~.. i 3 ~ IA.:.:: ~i ` ' JL+ ;.k E : <<a l i r~----- II C I I~ g _-___-__--=~ Fg or-. I I~Fi~ I Ix~g I I^"'" ~ )~ i • 1 2 0 . ~ p a ~ ~> U ~ V O ¢ ~Q '~ w~ _ ~ w = r++ pz 3 z„ ~ Z 14D =o ~ pz U~ Q ~ 3 a UN ?11 N3 war ~ 3 ~"'' " _ ? U » f mN y y F-J ~~ ~~Ela w~~ ~a oz-~+m xpa w~¢~ us--~~~? ~Z1Om o~ac ~'~' %w Kp ~~ ¢ ~ pt7p0 Vp rva3mE 3wLL3 »oa.u ~~ ~ _ <_ .od z ~¢~a Qw? z pMN~ ~? ~ao / + 9 pao C~` ~F-w ~~~_ ~Z g =z~a U ~y Far e4i 3:r 0 0 W 0 t/•) r 0 c s U ita 066i'H1IIN OOtlNOIOI `IIVh m' ni vias' uvs mor a~rusmi xfaos iu 9E£E•Zb5.466 •X'd~ 9686 • bb4.466 N338J Ufl1l30fl zi11 )Q'St)dlff()fa Z066L • sexal • osed 13 • p~ob wta 6061 t~ ry ~ ~ W p ® d~ ~ " M ~ ~ '~NI '1~311H~21V la3?JOl t/N1121`dW ~'1 U VI '1 f`7 01 'd'1`~OON ~0 ~~tla~~ `_____.° ~ ,. ~~z,_1. ~ r •• N •• m z '- o z _. ~ • • ..~ o Q ~ ~ > ~~aa a o ~ o i~ ('M'O•?~ a01) abO~1 ~133yO ~Ha~_,_ MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 24, 2006 SUBJECT: A request for final review of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for floodplain modifications, located at 2764, 2754, and 2695 South Frontage Road/Lots A, B, and C, Stephens Subdivision; and a request for a final review of floodplain modifications, pursuant to Chapter 14-6, Grading Standards, Vail Town Code, to allow for grading within the floodplain, located at 2764, 2754, and 2695 South Frontage Road/Lots A, B, and C, Stephens Subdivision, and 2450 South Frontage Road/Unplatted and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0001 and PEC06-0027) Applicant: Town of Vail, Louise Young, Brian Hoyt, Maggie Froning, Lorraine Howenstine, and Chas Bernhardt Planner: Bill Gibson SUMMARY The applicants, Town of Vail, Louise Young, Brian Hoyt, Maggie Froning, Lorraine Howenstine, and Chas Bernhardt, are requesting approval of a floodplain modification, pursuant to Chapter 14-6, Grading Standards, Vail Town Code, to allow for grading within the floodplain to allow Parcels A, B, and C of Stephens Subdivision and the western unplatted portion of Stephens Park to be filled to remove portions of the properties from the 100-year Gore Creek flood fringe. Grading is not proposed within the actual 100-year floodway. Based upon Staff's review of the criteria in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission approves, with conditions, the requested floodplain modification, subject to the findings noted in Section Vll of this memorandum. The applicants, Louise Young, Brian Hoyt, Maggie Froning, Lorraine Howenstine, and Chas Bernhardt, are also requesting approval of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13- 12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to delete an incorrectly platted 100-year flood plain line and to remove a plat note that states: "Any floodplain modification that is constructed for the Stephens Subdivision shall not change the approved number of units orgross residential floorarea for each parcel. "Based upon Staff's review of the criteria in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission approves the requested amendment to the final plat, subject to the findings noted in Section VII of this memorandum. • 1 II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicants, Town of Vail, Louise Young, Brian Hoyt, Maggie Froning, Lorraine Howenstine, and Chas Bernhardt, are requesting approval of a floodplain modification and a final plat amendment to allow Parcels A, B, and C of Stephens Subdivision and the western unplatted portion of Stephens Park. A vicinity map has been attached for reference (see Attachment A). The Town of Vail has recently been working with FEMA to update the floodplain maps for the entire Town of Vail. It was recently discovered that the floodplain line drawn on the Stephens Subdivision plat is inaccurate based upon the recently acquired floodplain data. Additionally, an existing berm and concrete block wall on these lots does not meet current FEMA standards and will not physically provide effective floodplain mitigation. While the Stephens Subdivision plat shows large portions of the subject lots being located outside the 100-year Gore Creek floodplain; the 2005 survey data and analysis shows significant portions of the Stephens Subdivision lots are actually located within the floodplain (nearly the entirety of Parcels B and C). The development potential of these three lots has been greatly diminished, essentially eliminated for Parcels B and C, by this information. The Town of Vail has coordinated with the property owners, a consulting engineering/land surveying firm, a consulting natural resources firm, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to develop a master grading plan for the four subject properties. This master plan will allow the individual property owners to re-grade portions of their lots and remove them from the 100-year Gore Creek flood fringe (the outer edge of the floodplain) with no impact to the floodplain quantity or velocity and with no negative impacts • to adjacent properties. Grading is not proposed within the actual 100-year Gore Creek floodway (location of the actual creek). The depth of fill required to remove these portions of these lots from the flood fringe are as follows: Parcel A: 0 to 6 inches Parcel B: 0 to 12 inches Parcel C: 0 to 8 inches The Town of Vail Floodplain Coordinator's analysis (Attachment B), Hydrosphere Resource Consultant's Floodplain Evaluation (Attachment C), the existing Stephen's Subdivision Plats (Attachment D), and several archive Planning and Environmental Commission Memorandums and Minutes (Attachment E) have all been attached for reference. Please be aware that the Hydrosphere report inadvertently refers to the western unplatted portion of Stephens Park as "Parcel D". III. BACKGROUND Please refer to the attached Town of Vail Floodplain Coordinator's analysis (Attachment B), Hydrosphere Resource Consultant's Floodplain Evaluation (Attachment C), existing Stephens Subdivision plats (Attachment D) and archive Planning and Environmental Commission Memorandums and Minutes (Attachment E) for additional background information. • • According to a 1992 Town of Vail memorandum, in 1976 the Eagle County Zoning Board of Adjustment granted variance approval to allow the original developer of Stephens Subdivision to fill the Gore Creek 100-year floodplain and create four lots (i.e. Parcels A, B, C, and D). According to Eagle County Assessor records, structures were built on Parcel A in 1976, on Parcel B (i.e. B-1 & B-2) in 1976, on Parcel C in 1994, and Parcel D in 1994/1995. Parcel D was resubdivided in 1994 as Pine Creek at Vail and is not associated with the applications being reviewed today by the Planning and Environmental Commission. According to Town of Vail records, in 1984 the Planning and Environmental Commission approved a request by the original developer to again re-grade Parcel A to further mitigate the 100-year floodplain. In 1985, the subject properties were de-annexed from the Town of Vail. In 1987, the subject properties were re-annexed into the Town of Vail. The three Stephens Subdivision lots were zoned Residential Cluster District and the western unplatted portions of Stephens Park was zoned Greenbelt and Natural Open Space District. The Stephens Subdivision lots remain Residential Cluster zoning today, while the western unplatted portions of Stephens Park is now zoned Outdoor Recreation District. Please be aware that the density potential (both dwelling units per acre and gross residential floor area) for a lot within the Residential Cluster District is based proportionally upon "buildable" lot area, not the total area of a lot. "Buildable" lot area excludes those portions of a lot located within the floodplain, red avalanche hazard and on slopes greater than 40%. In October of 1984 and again in February of 1985, the Stephens Subdivision lots were realigned. At that time, the Planning and Environmental Commission required the approved plat to delineate the 100-year floodplain line and include a note stating: `Any floodplain modification that is constructed for the Stephens Subdivision shall not change the approved number of units or gross residential floor area for each parce/. " Even though the developer had received previous Eagle County and Town of Vaif approvals for filling in the floodplain, the meeting minutes reflect the Staff and Commissioner's concern of creating a precedent in allowing the applicant to create more "buildable" lot area by filling the floodplain (additional buildable lot area could result in more allowable dwellings and gross residential floor area). The floodplain line shown on this plat was based upon the location. of a berm and concrete block wall intended to function as levees. While the Town of Vail accepted the platted line as the accurate floodplain, applications were not submitted to FEMA to accept these floodplain mitigation measures or to update FEMA's flood insurance maps. In 2001, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved a replatting of Parcel B into Parcel B-1 and B-2 to create two lots for ownership purposes. The plat note stating: `Any floodplain modification that is constructed for the Stephens Subdivision shall not change the approved number of units or gross residential floor area for each parce!"was not included on this adopted plat, nor was it included in the 1994-1995 replatting of Parcel D into the Pine Creek at Vail subdivision. However, Staff does not believe this was an intentional omission. The 2001 replatting of Parcel B allowed for the construction of 2single-family residences. While the Town of Vail records acknowledge the existence of 2non-conforming residences on this parcel, the 1984 and 1985 memorandums note a limit of only one dwelling unit. The Town of Vail has recently been working with FEMA to update the floodplain maps for the entire Town of Vail. It was discovered that the floodplain line drawn on the Stephens • Subdivision plat is inaccurate based upon recently acquired floodplain data. Additionally, the 3 existing berm and concrete block wall do not meet current FEMA standards and will not • physically provide effective floodplain mitigation. While the Stephens Subdivision plat shows large portions of the subject lots being located outside the 100-year Gore Creek floodplain; the 2005 survey data and analysis shows significant portions of the Stephens Subdivision lots are actually located within the floodplain (nearly the entirety of Parcels B and C). The development potential of these three lots has been greatly diminished, essentially eliminated for Parcel B and C, by this information. Since these are legally platted and developed properties, the Town of Vail has been coordinating with the property owners, a consulting engineering/land surveying firm, a consulting natural resources firm, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to find mitigation solutions to the floodplain issues related to these three Stephens Subdivision lots and the Town owned adjacent western unplatted portion of Stephens Park. This collaboration has resulted in the development of a master grading plan for the four subject properties. This master plan will allow the individual property owners to re-grade portions of their lots and remove them from the accurate 100-year Gore Creek flood fringe (the outer edge of the floodplain) with no impact to the floodplain quantity or velocity of the floodplain and with no negative impacts to adjacent properties. Re-grading is not being proposed within the actual 100-year Gore Creek floodway (location of the actual creek), IV. ROLES OF REVIEWING BODIES Plannino and Environmental Commission: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for final approval/approval with conditions/denial of a floodplain modification and final plat amendment application. • Design Review Board: The Design Review Board has no review authority of a floodplain modification or final plat amendment, but may review any accompanying Design Review application. Town Council: Actions of Design Review Board or Planning and Environmental Commission may be appealed to the Town Council or by the Town Council. Town Councii evaluates whether or not the Design Review Board or Planning and Environmental Commission erred with approvals or denials and can uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the board's decision. Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided and plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines. Staff provides a memo containing background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Town of Vail Zoning Regulations (Title 12. Vail Town Codel Section 12-21-10E, HAZARD REGULATIONS, DEVELOPMENT RESTRICTED (in part) • 4 • E. The Administrator may require any applicant or person desiring to modify the flood plain by fill, construction, channelization, grading, orothersimilarchanges, to submitforreviewan environmental impact statement in accordance with Chapter 12 of this Title, to establish that the work will not adversely affect adjacent properties, or increase the quantity or velocity of flood waters. TITLE 13, SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS (in part) 13-2, DEFINITIONS (in part): EXEMPTION PLAT: The platting of a portion of land or property that does not fall within the definition of a "subdivision'; as contained in this section. 13-12, EXEMPTION PLAT REVIEW PROCEDURES (in part) i 3-12-1: PURPOSE AND INTENT: The purpose of this chapter is to establish criteria and an appropriate reviewprocess whereby the planning and environmental commission may grant exemptions from the definition of the term "subdivision" for properties that are determined to fall outside the purpose, purview and intent of Chapter 3 and 4 of this title. This process is intended to allow for the platting of property where no additional parcels are created and conformance with applicable provisions of this code has been demonstrated. • 13-12-2: EXEMPTIONS IN PROCEDURE AND SUBMITTALS: "Exemption Plats'; as defined in Section 13-2-2 of this title, shall be exempt from requirements related to preliminary plan procedures and submittals. Exemption plat applicants may be required to submit an environmental impact report if required by Title 12, Chapter 12 of this code. 13-12-3: PLAT PROCEDURE AND CRITERIA FOR REVIE (in part): C. Review And Action On Plat: The planning and environmental commission shall review the plat and associated materials and shall approve, approve with modifications or disapprove the plat within twenty one (21) days of the first public hearing on the exemption plat application or the exemption plat application will be deemed approved. A longer time period for rendering a decision maybe granted subject to mutual agreement between the planning and environmental commission and the applicant. The criteria for reviewing the plat shall be as contained in Section i3-3-4 of this title. Town of Vail Development Standards Handbook (Title 14, Vail Town Codel Chapter 14-6, GRADING STANDARDS (in part) Floodplain Standards: No grading is permitted in the 100-year Floodplain without Planning and Environmental Commission approval. If an applicant wishes to grade into the i00-year floodplain, an environmental impact report is required. The environmental impact report shall include • impacts to vegetation, riparian areas, appropriate hydraulic engineering calculations to show 5 no increase in water surface profile and velocity, as well as stating that there will be no • adverse impacts to adjacent properties. No permanent improvements shall be constructed within 1 ' of the floodplain line. VI. VII. The floodplain line shall be determined by a registered professional land surveyor by plotting the appropriate elevation of the floodplain on a maximum 1 " 20'topographic 2' contour map using the adopted Town of Vail flood profiles (the Federal Emergency ManagementAgency Flood Insurance Study). The topographic survey shall reveal the method for determining the starting point and the starting elevation for fhe floodplain delineation. A site specific study performed by a Professional Engineer per FEMA guidelines and approved by the Town of Vail and FEMA maybe required. ZONING ANALYSIS Lot Approx. buildable area Allowable DU's AllowableGRFA Parcel A: 1985 8,870 sq.ft. 1 3,193 sq.ft. FEMA 2005 9,020 sq.ft. 1 3,247 sq.ft. max. proposed fill 9,485 sq.ft. 1 3,414sq.ft. change '85 to fill +615 sq.ft. (+7%) no change +221 sq.ft. (7%) Parcel B: 1985 12,270 sq.ft. 2 (per 2001 plat) 4,417 sq.ft. FEMA 2005 365 sq.ft. 0 131 sq.ft. max. proposed fill 15,390 sq.ft. 2 5,540 sq.ft. change '85 to fill +3,120 sq.ft. (+25%) no change +1,123sq.ft. (+25%) P • arcel C: 1985 14,540 sq.ft. 2 5,234 sq.ft. FEMA 2005 400 sq.ft. 0 144 sq.ft. max. proposed fill 11,180 sq.ft. 1 4,025 sq.ft. change '85 to fill -3,360 sq. ft. (-23%) -1 -1,209sq.ft. (-23%) Total: 1985 35,680 sq.ft. 5 12,844 sq.ft. FEMA 2005 9,785 sq.ft. 1 3,522 sq.ft. max. proposed fill 36,055sq.ft. 4 12,979 sq.ft. change '85 to fill +375 sq. ft. (+ 1 %) -1 +135sq ft. (+1 %) CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Floodplain Modification A. The Plannina and Environmental Commission shall consider the followina criteria when reviewina an application for a modification to the floodplain: 1. The proposed floodplain modification will not increase the quantity or velocity of flood waters. The Town of Vail Floodplain Coordinator's analysis (Attachment B) and the technical analysis prepared by Hydrosphere Resources Consultants (Attachment C) find that there will be no adverse impacts to adjacent properties or measurable increase in the quantity or velocity of flood waters. • 6 2. The proposed floodplain modification will not adversely affect adjacent properties. The Town of Vail Floodplain Coordinator's analysis (Attachment B) and the technical analysis prepared by Hydrosphere Resources Consultants (Attachment C) find that there will be no adverse impacts to adjacent properties or measurable increase in the quantity or velocity of flood waters. 3. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. Both Eagle County and the Town of Vail have previously approved grading within the 100-year floodplain to mitigate the floodplain hazards to the Stephens Subdivision lots and to allow the lots to be more buildable. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before anorovina a floodplain modification: 1. The proposed floodplain modification will not increase the quantity or velocity of flood waters. 2. The proposed floodplain modification will not adversely affect adjacent properties. • Final Plat Amendment C. Criteria: Pursuant to Section 13-3-4, Commission Review of Application; Criteria, Vail Town Code, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall consider the following criteria with respect to the proposed final plat: 1. The extent to which the proposed subdivision is consistent with all the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town; and Staff Response: The proposed final plat amendment will facilitate the re-grading of portions of four lots that have recently been discovered to be significantly impacted by the Gore Creek 100-year floodplain. The proposed re-grading will remove existing structures from the floodplain and will allow for future improvements to these legally subdivided and developed lots in a manner which will not impact the floodplain. Staff believes these results are consistent with the Town's development objectives. 2. The extent to which the proposed subdivision complies with all of the standards of this Title, as well as, but not limited to, Title 12, Zoning Regulations and other pertinent regulations that the Planning and Environmental Commission deems applicable; and • 7 Staff Response: The proposed final plat amendment will correct the inaccurate • delineation of the 100-year Gore Creek floodplain on the Stephens Subdivision plats. The proposed final plat amendments will also facilitate the removal of existing and future development from the 100-year flood plain which is more incompliance with the applicable portions of the Town's Zoning Regulations and Development Standards than the existing circumstances. 3. The extent to which the proposed subdivision presents a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses consistent with municipal development objectives; and Staff Response: The proposed final plat amendment will continue to be harmonious, convenient, and workable relationship with other properties within the neighborhood based upon the Town of Vail Floodplain Coordinator's analysis (Attachment B) and the technical analysis prepared by Hydrosphere Resources Consultants (Attachment C). The change in total development potential for Parcels A, B, and C from 1985 to the maximum proposed fill has no net change in allowable dwelling units and a modest increase in GRFA of 135 total sq.ft. (+1%). 4. The extent of the effects on the future development of the surrounding area; and Staff Response: The proposed final plat amendment will ensure that both existing and future development of the surrounding area will not occur within the true 100- year Gore Creek floodplain. The change in total development potential for Parcels A, B, and C from 1985 to the maximum proposed fill has no net change in allowable • dwelling units and a modest increase in GRFA of 135 total sq.ft. (+1%). 5. The extent to which the proposed subdivision is located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development; and Staff Response: This proposed final plat amendment will not create inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, require the duplication or extension of public facilities, or create "leapfrog" development in comparison to existing conditions. 6. The extent to which the utility lines are sized to serve the planned ultimate population of the service area to avoid future land disruption to upgrade under-sized lines; and Staff Response: This final plat amendment of existing improved properties will have no additional impact on utility lines and/or service areas in comparison to existing conditions. 7. The extent to which the proposed subdivision provides for the growth of an orderly viable community and serves the best interests of the community as a whole; and • 8 • Staff Response: The proposed final plat amendments will. provide for the growth of an orderly, viable community and better serves the community's interests as a whole in comparison to existing conditions by accurately reflecting the location of the Gore Creek 100-year flood plain and removing existing and future development from the true 100-year floodplain in a coordinated manner. 8. The extent to which the proposed subdivision results in adverse or beneficial impacts on the natural environment, including, but not limited to, water quality, air quality, noise, vegetation, riparian corridors, hillsides and other desirable natural features; and Staff Response: Based upon the Town of Vail Floodplain Coordinator's analysis (Attachment B) and the technical analysis prepared by Hydrosphere Resources Consultants (Attachment C), the proposed final plat amendments will not adversely impact the natural environment and will allow existing and future development to be removed from Gore Creek 100-year floodplain. 9. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission and/or Council deem applicable to the proposed subdivision. B. Findings: Pursuant to Section 13-3-4, Commission Review of Application; Criteria, Vail Town Code, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings with respect to the proposed final plat: • 1. That the subdivision is in compliance with the criteria listed in Subsection 13-3- 4A, Vail Town Code; and 2. That the subdivision is consistent with the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and compatible with the development objectives of the Town; and 3. That the subdivision is compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses and appropriate for the surrounding areas; and 4. That the subdivision promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission approves, with conditions, the proposed floodplain modification, pursuant to Chapter 14-6, Grading Standards, Vail Town Code to allow for grading within the floodplain, located at 2764, 2754, and 2695 South Frontage Road/Lots A, 8, and C, Stephens Subdivision, and 2450 South Frontage Road/Unplatted and setting forth details in regard thereto. This recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented. • 9 Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this request; the • Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission approves the applicants'request fora floodplain modification, pursuant to Chapter 14-6, Grading Standards, Vail Town Code, to allow for grading within the floodplain, located at 2764, 2754, and 2695 South Frontage Road/Lots A, B, and C, Stephens Subdivision, and 2450 South Frontage Road/Unplatted and setting forth details in regard thereto, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of all applicable local, state, and federal permits and approvals. 2. The applicant shall coordinate all grading associated with this proposal with the State of Colorado Division of Wildlife. 3. Prior to any modification, excavation or placement of fill within the 100-year floodplain: a. All improvements/modifications shall comply with the study and letter completed by Hydrosphere Resource Consultants dated 2/14/06 and 3/29/06 respectively. b. The applicant must obtain Town of Vail Design Review Board and Building Department approval. • c. The applicant must submit and obtain FEMA approval of a CLOMR-F (Conditional Letter of Map Revision based on Fill) or CLOMR (Conditional Letter of Map Revision). 4. Upon completion of the improvements/modifications within the 100-year floodplain: a. The applicant shall satisfy all conditions of the FEMA approved CLOMR-For CLOMR. b. The applicant must submit and receive FEMA approval of a LOMR-F (Letter of Map Revision based on Fill) or LOMR (Letter of Map Revision based on Fill) . c. The applicant shall obtain Town of Vail approval of an as- builtsurvey showing the modified 100-year and the FEMA approved floodplain line. 5. All new structures placed upon any fill improvement shall meet FEMA's criteria to be defined as not within the 100-year floodplain. All new structures shall also be a minimum of one (1.0) foot above the FEMA approved Base Flood Elevation (BFE), thus providing 1.0 foot of freeboard. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings: • 10 • "The Planning and Environmental Commission finds: 1. The proposed floodplain modification will not increase the quantity or velocity of flood waters, based upon the technical analysis prepared by the Town of Vail Floodplain Coordinator and Hydrosphere Resources Consultants. 2. The proposed floodplain modification will not adversely affect adjacent properties, based upon the technical analysis prepared by the Town of Vail Floodplain Coordinator and Hydrosphere Resources Consultants. 3. The proposed floodplain modification will not have an adverse affect on the environment, based upon the technical analysis prepared by the Town of Vail Floodplain Coordinator and Hydrosphere Resources Consultants." The Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission approves the applicants' request for a amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to delete an incorrectly platted 100-year flood plain line and to remove a plat note that states: "Any floodplain modification that is constructed for the Stephens Subdivision shall not change the approved number of units orgross residential floor area for each parcel'; located at 2764, 2754, and 2695 South Frontage Road/Lots A, B, and C, Stephens Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Staff's recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the final plat, the • Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission approves the applicant's request fora amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13- i2, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to delete an incorrectly platted 100-year flood plain line and to remove a plat note that states: "Any floodplain modification that is constructed for the Stephens Subdivision shall not change the approved number of units or gross residential floor area for each parcel'; located at 2764, 2754, and 2695 South Frontage Road/Lots A, 8, and C, Stephens Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. " Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the final plat, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings: "The Planning and Environmental Commission finds: 1. That the subdivision is in compliance with the criteria listed in Sub-section 13-3- 4A, Vail Town Code; and 2. That the subdivision is consistent with the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and compatible with the development objectives of the Town; and 11 3. That the subdivision is compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses and • appropriate for the surrounding areas; and 4. That the subdivision promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. " IX. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Town of Vail Floodplain Coordinator's analysis C. Hydrosphere Resource Consultant's Floodplain Evaluation and Master Grading Plan D. Existing Stephen's Subdivision Plats E. Archive Planning and Environmental Commission Memorandums and Minutes F. Public Notice • • 12 Attachment: A ~o 4. _> ~ ~ y C ~Y . _ ~,. ' ' ~ y ' °~ ~~r `' = = ' ~ ~ ~ ,a t F, ~~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ., ~ a _ ~ `l ~ N ~ ~ ~ G ~. ~. LL a o ~~~ ` •V/ ~a r~ 3 ~ ~ O as ; o . ~~,; + xxy,+ ~ ~ \ V _~ ~ ;, N ~~ H ~,°n E., t"~. 1Y / ~ O . 1 ~..~~~~~ 3 ~ 't Y/ a ~ ~ ~1 ~y~~`'; ~ ~ ,,,~~ N / ~ } , $ :~¢i'v'~• ty •~ j 1t ~ N ' N ~~ V ~ ~ t 1~w `3.. ~~ ~ ~ ~ h, O rc~ ~ N H m ~E . L m `• s,' , r .:- .~ ..` ~ d ''": '"'t ~,'~ O O N 01 ~, n 0 Attachment: B ~ • TOWNOF V~ ' Department ofPublic Works & Transportation MEMO To: Planning and Environmental Commission From: Tom Kassmel, Floodplain Coordinator Re: Stephens Park Subdivision Floodplain Modification Application Date: April 24`h, 2006 Summary & Recommendation The Town of Vail has received application for modification to the 100 Year Floodplain in the Stephens Park Subdivision Vicinity, more specifically lots A, B-1, B-2, C and the unplatted western portion of Stephens Park (denoted as D on Hydrosphere's Floodplain Study map). The modifications include placing fill in the shaded areas as shown on the attached map to a level above the Base Flood Elevation (BFE), placing approximately 0' to 1' of fill within the floodplain. Per Title 12-21-10-E the Town has required an engineered analysis of the proposed modifications to establish that the modifications will not adversely affect adjacent properties, or increase the quantity or velocity of flood waters. Based on this analysis we have concluded that the proposed modifications meet the above criteria and recommend the floodplain modification request be approved with the• following conditions: 1. Prior to any modification, excavation or placement of fill within the 100 yr floodplain; a. All improvements/modifications shall comply with the study and letter completed by Hydrosphere Resource Consultants dated 2/14/06 and 3/29/06 respectively. b. DRB and Building Department approval shall be obtained. c. A CLOMR-F (Conditional Letter of Map Revision based on Fill) or CLOMR (Conditional Letter of Map Revision) shall be filed and approved by FEMA. 2. Upon completion of the improvements/modifications within the 100 year floodplain; a. All conditions of the FEMA approved CLOMR-F or CLOMR shall be satisfied. b. A LOMR-F (Letter of Map Revision based on Fill) or LOMR (Letter of Map Revision based on Fill) shall be filed and approved by FEMA c. An As-built survey with the modified 100 year FEMA approved floodplain line placed on it shall be filed with the Town of Vail. 3. All new building structures placed upon any fill improvement shall meet the FEMA criteria to be considered not in the 100 Year floodplain and also be a minimum of one (1.0) foot above the FEMA approved BFE, thus providing 1.0 foot of freeboard for all new building structures. The study report and letter stamped by a Colorado professional engineer are attached for you review. Background The above mentioned properties are currently located within the 100 year floodplain as designated by FEMA i~ both the 1982 and the 2005 floodplain studies. However since 1983 the Town of Vail has recognized these parcels, or at least the buildable portions of these parcels, as being out of the floodplain due to the completion of a man-made berm/levee and concrete block wall. This has created a conflict between development practice within this area and the Town code. In short the Town regulates the 100 Year Floodplain based upon the approved FEMA 100 Year Floodplain designation, per title 12-21-11 of the Town code. Since the berm/levee and wall improvements were never submitted to FEMA they were neither reviewed nor recognized by FEMA, therefore they should not have been recognized or approved by the Town of Vail. However since they were proved by the Town, development has occurred within this floodplain area. In the most recent FEMA oodplain study (c. 2005) it is evident that FEMA does not recognize the berm/levee and wall improvements since they do not meet the current FEMA floodplain mitigation criteria. Therefore the Town of Vail should no longer accept this area as not in the floodplain. The problem then is having approved developed areas within the 100 year floodplain. The solution is to remove this area from the floodplain in accordance with both Town of Vail and FEMA requirements. Since this area is designated by FEMA as a Flood "fringe" area, fill improvements are allowed by filing a CLOMR or CLOMR-F and then following up after the improvements with a LOMR and LOMR-F. The process is relatively straight forward. The Town of Vail requirements are more restrictive in that an engineered analysis and PEC approval are required in order to make any improvements/modifications within the floodplain. At this point in time it is appropriate to satisfy the Town of Vail requirements by gaining PEC approval for modifications to the floodplain. PEC approval should be conditioned with FEMA's approval via the LOMR process and in addition those conditions stated above. The ultimate goal is to have those parcels located within the Stephens Subdivision to have the opportunity to remove themselves from the 100 year floodplain according to their own timetable. The attached study report and letter provide additional background and technical information for your review. • n U Attachment: C HYDROSPHERE Resource Consultants March 29, 2006 Mr. Thomas Kassmel, P.E. Vail Town Engineer 1309 Elkhorn Drive Vail, CO 81657 RE: Kinniclcinick Road Bridge Floodplain Evaluation Dear Mr. Kassmel: The following is a summary of a floodplain evaluation completed along Gore Creek downstream of Kinnickinick Road Bridge in Vail, Colorado. Please refer to the drawing attached to this letter and the full report entitled "Kinnickinick Road Area Floodplain Evaluation" (Hydrosphere Resource Consultants 2/14/06) for more detail as needed. This narrative expressly addresses the 100-year flood. All of the reliable flood evaluations, including the new regulatory flood insurance study currently in the adoption process, which have been completed in the subject reach, document the majority of Parcels B-1 and B-2 as being within the 100-year floodplain of Gore Creek. The cross sections of the proposed regulatory hydraulic model are not positioned to show the impact of any proposed encroachment of this area and as such will show no impact on flooding conditions. A study of this reach using additional cross sections to provide additional hydraulic detail results in lower water surface elevations than the proposed new regulatory elevations. These computations are not reliable due to unstable flow conditions characteristic of critical depth and associated mathematical anomalies. To further complicate the matter, the proposed regulatory hydraulic model indicates that a small amount of spatially varied flow occurs around the north side of the residence on Parcel C. Neither the actual flow rate of this spatially varied flow nor the elevations along this separate hydraulic grade line have been computed. This detail is neither warranted nor would it provide sufficiently accurate additional information. Use of the proposed new regulatory elevations provides a reasonable estimate of flooding elevations along this reach. In addition, the localized area of land behind the floodway containing Parcels B-1 and B-2 between Parcel C and Parcel A lies in the flood shadow provided by Parcel C and is ineffective in carrying water downstream. This means that this entire area can be filled without impacting flood elevations in this reach. The appropriate FEMA regulated method to permit encroachment of this area via placement of fill would be through the LOMR or LOMR-F process. Please note that a LOMR-F does not allow any usable floor elevation (including the basement) to be below the flood protection elevation. The aforementioned snore detailed hydraulic model was configured to show encroachment by fill and it also shows lower unreliable Policy Analysis Engineering • Environmental Assessment information Systems • • • 1002 \~'alnut, Sr.aite 200 • Boulder, Colorado 80302 U.S.A. • (3,J31 443-7839 TeleFax (303) 442-0616 P.O. Box 445 • Socorro, New Mexico 87801 U.S.A. (505) S35-2556 TeleFax (505) 835-2609 • elevations as previously described. As such, it can be concluded that numerical hydraulic calculations do not provide a reliable basis for floodplain regulation in this area. It is our opinion that the entire area behind the floodway shown hatched (black diagonals) on the attached drawing in the vicinity of Parcel A, Parcel B-1 and Parcel B-2 can be filled to an elevation greater than the FEMA base flood elevation without causing a measurable change in velocity, water surface elevations or having any adverse impact on adjacent parcels. A small amount of spatially varied flow around the north side of the building on Parcel C remains a theoretic possibility until this area is filled to an elevation at all locations higher than the Gore Creek hydraulic grade line. Hatching (black diagonal) in this area indicates either land that is already filled and not truly flooded or the spatially varied flow path that can be filled to an elevation greater than the FEMA base flood elevation without causing a measurable change in velocity, water surface elevations or having any adverse impact on adjacent parcels. The appropriate FEMA regulated method to eliminate this spatially varied flow via the placement of fill would be through the LOMR process. When the filling of the spatially varied flow path is accomplished, spatially varied flow will no longer occur, the area reserved for spatially varied flow will no longer be needed and all the four subject parcels will be truly removed from flood hazard without creating adverse impacts to other parcels. The area shown with hatched (black diagonals) behind the spatially varied flow path is also ineffective flow along the edge of Parcel D and can be filled to an elevation greater than the FEMA base flood elevation without causing a measurable change in velocity, water surface elevations or having any adverse impact on adjacent parcels. Until such time as filling of the spatially varied flow path can be accomplished, a con-idor in the floodplain, shown by "dot" shading needs to be reserved to provide a floodplain fringe that is "reasonably safe from flooding" (FEMA suggested terminology) without fill and free of obstructions to convey spatially varied flow. Such a corridor can be narrowed to a smaller • corridor if the resulting corridor is appropriately sized and arn~ored (as supported by engineering calculations). Sincerely, Hydrosphere Resource Consultants, Inc. bY~ ~ ~_~, Do gl R. Laiho, P. `~ Seni r Engineering Manager p 0 RF a~P,e....~is ~ .~ l era 50~ e 1fo26 oD m ~a o o me e ~~~, ~~, ~. o.< ~3 zs/off • Hydrosphere Resource Consultants, 1002 Walnut Street Suite 200, Boulder, C.O 80302 • I~lnnlck~n~ck Road Area ~'loodplaln EValnation r~ prepared for: down of Vaa_1, Colorado FebrL~a~y 14, 2006 - • HYDI~0SPHERE Resource Consultants 1002 Walnut, Suite 200 Boulder, Colorado 80302 (303) 443-7839 TeleFax (303) 442-0616 F.O. Box 445 S0C0rrO, New Ntexico 87801 (505) 835-2556 TeleFax (505) 835-2609 ~` I Attachment: E T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 23, 1984 SUBJECT: Request to modify a floodplain on the Stephens subdivision, Parcel A, in Vail Intermountain Subdivision REQUEST The floodplain in the Stephens subdivision has been modified in the past by Mr. Stephens. He now wishes to simply make it safer by building a higher berm (2.5 feet) on Parcel A as drawn on the Johnson Kunkel & Associates plan. Presently, one dwelling unit exists on Parcel A. The berm will use river cobbles for rip-rap. Several large pine trees and willows are located on the northern edge of the river bed. Natural grasses will be planted to revegetate the berm when construction is completed. EIR STATEMENT Section 18.69.040(E) of the Hazard Regulations specified the criteria for modification to the floodplain: E. The zoning administrator may require any applicant or person desiring to modify the floodplain by fill, construction, channelization, grading or other similar changes, to submit for review an environmental impact statement in accordance with 18.56 to establish that the work will not adversely affect adjacent properties, or increase the quantity or velocity of flood waters. The mini-EIR is attached in the form of letters dated July 5 and August 4, 1983 from John MacKown of Johnson, Kunkel, and Associates to Terrill Knight. The letter dated August 1984, states ...the flow rate will remain basically unchanged, causing no detrimental effect on properties along the stream. It is recommended that any development that occurs should provide for additional freeboard between the first floor elevation and the 100 year floodplain of 2.5 feet." STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends approval of the floodplain modification, as we feel the proposal meets the intent of the criteria in 18.69.040 (E). This modifi- cation should provide a safer site for Parcel A while respecting upstream and downstream properties. Approval is contingent on the applicant agreeing to protect the pines and willows along.the northern river bank. Revegetation shall also be required once construction is finished. n U a~ a U O .~- a Z o a w N t!1 'Z W f]-- u.~ !"" tJ~ -r s %n yN a v- ~ X N ~ i- S' ~ ¢' 'O ~ ~ ~ d O ~ 5-- ~ o- ?- ~ Z ~ 8 ;;:~ ;- _ ~ ~~ ,a, ~,:_ :~_ -.~-~ -~: Johnson, Kunke_ 1 & Associates, Inc. r LAND SURVEYING • CIVIL ENGINEERING • t,AAPPING .:%' L July 5, 1983 Terrill Knight Box 1199 _. _ .. _ Eagle, CO -81631 - ~ ~ ., RE: Al.Stephens Property at Sti'est Vail Flood Plain Analysis 83/085 Dear Terrill, - _ _ - -. - _ _ - - /~ _ At your .request-I have examined the flooding potential fLOm.a 100 year flood for Al Stephens property located in Section 14, Township 5 South, Range 81W of the Sixth P.M..in the Town of Vail, Colorado. _ ~_ The anaylsis~is based on a _study performed by Hydro-Triad of Lakewood, June 1975-.for the :Town of .Vail, Eagle County aid the Colorado Water Conservation Board ._ _ .This _st.ud,y _.was supplemented with field cross-sections performed- by Eagle.Val.ley Engineering Co. of-Vail, Colorado. Flow depth was based on Mannings equation using a value of N=O.Oo, Q100 = 3,000 cfs and a slope between-1.5$ and_ 3~. The 100 year flow depth below the bridge at Lupine Street (section 97.45) will spill over the north side bank and will inundate around the existing structures and area to the west. This inundated area would be considered a low hazard flood area, i.e. velocity and depth would be minimal. Construction of a berm on the existing natural levee will correct the problem. Use of river cobbles (18"+) for riprap and undulated slopes with natural grasses would make the berm unelectable. Basically the berm should run from the bridge abuttment at appror.imately 2B to the existing levee wall currently in place. The berm would range from 2 to 5 feet in heiynt, thus affording a 2 to 3 foot free boarel capacity along the north bank. The existing levee and block wall at the easterly structure provides appror.imately 1/2 foot free board. Just downstream from the house at sta 5 + 19.37 the leevy should be raised to afford additional protection to the ~^ . westerly structures. ~~ _j .~;~ ~• ~ ~ C.. ~1~ ' Page 2 of 2 0 The limits of flooding have been indicated on a base map prepared by Eagle Valley Engineering, X658 from the house on the north side to the bridge at Lupine Street and along the south side from the bridge to the wes*_erly property boundary. Should you have additional questions concerning this study please advise. Sincerely, ~~ ~~' ~ v v ohn t•SacKown, P.E. • • ~; \`.~ . ~.; ~ Johnson, Kunkel & Associates, lnc. ~; :: LAND SURVEYING • CIVIL ENGINEERING•MAPPING L August 5, 1983 Mr. Terrill Knight Box 947 Eagle, Colorado 81631 Re: Al Stephens Property in Vail JK/83/085 Floodplain Dear Terrill: . " - - i~ _. At your request I have plotted the flood limits from - Station 4+51.49 to Station 7-x87.27 at the western end of the property along the northerly bank. Enclosed is a revision of the earlier map.- - - - - Additionally you asked about the possible effects of the berm on the upstream and downstream.se.ctions of ~= Gore Creek. The berm will have minimal effects on the level of the stream since the velocity within the new --- channel will be slightly increased. Some overbank storage of the 100 year flood peak will be affected, however, the volume again is very small compared to the overall drainage basin,rthus the flow rate will remain basically unchanged, causing no detrimental affect on properties along the stream. It~is recommended that any development that occurs should provide for additional freeboard between the first - floor elevation and the 100 year floodplain of 2.5 feet. Should you have any additional questions please advise. Si cerely, • iG''~~ ~~" `- J n L. MacKown, P/.E(.` Enclosures I ., .-, .._ •nn „~ c_.~ nil. C1.PP! F>.,iP !-nlnrTdn 81631 Phnn P• !i(131 378-6368 ~ -.I. _; - --- - - il'. . Johnson, Kunkel & Associates, Inc. ~~ LAND SURVEYING • CIVIL ENGINEERING • MAPPING August 1984 Terrill Knight Box 947 Eagle, Co. 81631 Re: Al Stephen Property at Vail Floodway revision Dear Terrill, At your request and that of Al Stephen, I have examined the effects of increasing the Block wall height and length, plus additional Bearing from Sta. 4 + 51.49 to Sta. 7 + 87.27 near the western end of the property along the northerly bank. You will find enclosed a revision of the earlier map reflecting these modifications. You also requested to know the possible effects of the improvements on upstream and downstream sections of Gore Creek. The results will basically be the same as -stated in~my letter of 5 August 1983, which indicated that the berm will have minimal effects on the level of the stream since the velocity within the new channel will he slightly increased. Some overbank storage of the 100 year flood peak will be affected, however, t'he volume again is very small compared to the overall drainage basin, thus the flow rate will remain basically ur- cnana~- r.a~i,~~ nor nn detr~ mental attect on properties along the stream. It is recommended that anv development that occurs should provide fcr a~lA; ti canal frPPb~ard between tl'LP first ~lnnr alavatic~n a,}'ld the 1~~(1 yP~r fl~~dn„lain cif ?.-5 faet-. Should you have any additional questions, please advise. Sinc rely, / / / ~ / `Q-LIr-~ ohn L. MacKown, P.E. xc Al Stephens • :~ P.O. Box 409 113 East 4th Street Eagle, Colorado 81631 Phone: (303) 328-6368 T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 8, 1984 SUBJECT: Realignment of lot lines for the Stephens Minor Subdivision Applicant: Allen Stephens Mr. Stephens would like to realign the west lot line of Parcel C to gain the additional site area necessary to allow two dwelling units on Parcel C instead of one dwelling unit. He is also requesting to straighten the east lot line of Parcel A to allow for a more optimal parcel configuration. The applicant's request states: "No substantive change in use or density is proposed. This amended plat better accounts for the land's inherent characteristics as well as for that which surrounds the property." (Knight letter, 9/27/1984) The gross size in square feet for each of the parcels has changed. The new figures are listed on the attached page. However, the buildable site area, allowed GRFA, and number of dwelling .units will remain the same except for Parcel C. Parcel C's gross square footage has increased by 180 square feet. The additional 180 square feet will allow for one more dwelling unit to be constructed on Parcel C. The buildable area will remain the same, 14,300 square feet which allows for a GRFA of 3,575 square feet. The applicant received approval for a floodplain modification proposal from the PEC on August 29, 1984. The number of units and gross residential floor area shall remain the same regardless of any floodplain modification. The final development statistics are listed on the following page. (Proposed Development Statistics) STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends approval of the lot line realignments. A condition of approval for the lot line realignment shall be that a note is added to the revised plat stating: Any floodplain modification that is constructed for the Stephens Subdivision shall not change the approved number of units or gross residential floor area for each parcel. Essentially the densities remain the same for each parcel except Parcel C. The additional dwelling unit for Parcel C was anticipated when the minor subdivision was initially reviewed. Amore functional parcel layout will be created by the lot line realignment. All previous conditions of approval related to the minor subdivision have been completed. For any new construction on these parcels, a detailed analysis of underground conditions and foundation design as per the • Summerlee report will be required. z r-r N O ~ N Ol a ~ L.L t i M to ~ lD L.t_ ~ ~ .. ~--+ C'S r M lfl r p r N C7 X Z O a ~--~ O O O 4. ~ N O I~ O O O a ?G N r M W W N O l1~ N Q1 a 3 r O n M r L1 O r r Ln I~ t.f) ~ J ~ LS' J N M M to l!') N Q r N S.. O r .1~ to ~ = C'3 r •r • Z O p ~-r ~ f- r r O O N W to N O ~--~ -C X +~ N W V O 4- ~-+ Z O I- N C ~-+ O a ~ H R to N r ~-- U Z ~ r W D ~ ~ p W U n- 3 •i~ ~ O ~- O r r r Q1 N S- J O J r- W J ~O ? a w O 4- '~ D Z •r 4J 3 c~ O O Z N r ~--~ F- r ~ N W r ~ -+ N W ~ Li a r0 O O ~ W ~ m ~ ~ 1 i O O O r 0 a ~}- ~ M Ol O r0 3 O' ~ V7 J O N ct• ~ N N N t--~ r r l.O O +~ i-~ r •r •r m ~ ~ ~ ~ 1~ O ~ 3 .~ W r N 3 O ~-+ F- O N N l.t_ O r O ~t to ~ rtf (~ to M O M N 41 N l0 l0 1~ lD 1~ i. N N N U O N N OJ tD O C C Q' Z M N r O lD O •~ O ~--~ r •r -1-> C b b J (/') ~ N w J v 3 U Q r O ~ ¢ m U O I- rtf .C a O U v1 a F- -k ~--~ N O ~[) N tD N I~ M LL w M to 1~ lL ~ ^ ---~ O r M lp p r Stephens -2- 10/8/84 al O r N C.'3 X Z O O O a ~--~ to 00 ~ li.. F-- O I~ O O d ~ t/') ~ C'3 ~--~ N r Q X W W N O ll) N Q 3 r O i~ M LL O r r Lf') f~ Q' J C.~3 J N M M t,p r N O • Z h--+ I-- LL (n r r O O O ~-+ X N W V O t--~ Z I•~ N - i F - F- a F- N N Z W ~ D d ~ W O 3 J LL• O r r N Ol W O J ~ J W a ~ O Z 0 w N O a O a [~ W a. ~ t1 a O w F-J O O O O Li.. m to O O M a ~f ¢t M 01 O• o fn J 00 N ~t l0 ~--~ r r l0 O] O M M Ql to N N M r O O O N O r w N 1- ~ w C/) O O O ~ O ~ N Ol M al L(•) 1~ (n (/) n w O r M O l0 O ~ Z M N r 00 lp L} i-i r J (~ W J U a ~ ¢ m U O F- a O a F-- I 111 ~J • r __ -_~r Stephens -3- )p/g/84 i v ~~ ~~ z ,~ `~ v ~„ , " ' ~ ~ ? ~ ~ y 0 z ° +~ 0 z z 0 Q m ~: z w a w H- PEC 10/8/84 -4- would have to be followed. Donovan replied that in considering rowhouse additions the impact on others had not been considered. Eskwith suggested adding a sentence asking the condominium association to look at the impacts. Discussion followed concerning whether or not to allow even studio apartments to add 250 square feet, and Eskwith stated that the Town could not discriminate. One suggestion was to use a percentage of increase rather than exact size of addition, but Patten replied that this would involve excess staff work to compute the existing size. He added that there was no way to write the ordinance to cover all conditions and reminded the board that an applicant would not receive 250 sq ft automatically. He felt that the biggest single danger was that the PEC would feel that they must grant a variance in these cases. Eskwith pointed out that this would allow the PEC to address the hardship issue. Viele velt that the the PEC had been inconsistent with small GRFA's. Piper wondered if there had been any consideration of granting less GRFA for multi-unit buildings, Eskwith felt that if the multi-unit buildings were to be treated differently, the rationale must be written into the ordinance. Piper felt that one reason was that a larger building could have a larger impact. Discussion followed concerning process, and Donovan asked about an applicant who already had a variance into a setback, and asked to add onto the side of the project that was in the setback. After more discussion, Viele moved and Walters seconded to recommend approval to the Town Council to amend the zoning code to allow up to 250 square feet of GRFA over the allowed or existing square footage provided certain conditions were met with the addition of condition #10 that states that multi-unit buildings could not pool the individu~ additions in order to build one large addition. The vote was 4-0 in favor. 7. Request for a minor subdivision of the Stephens property in Vail Intermountain Subdivision. Applicant: Al Stephens Peter Patten explained the request pointing out that the intention of the minor subdivision was to allow one additional dwelling unit on Parcel C, but not to increase the number of units on the other parcels. Terrill Knight, representing the applicant, stated that since the modification of the flood plain, there was additional square footage on the land. He asked that the applicant be allowed additional units. Patten replied that the staff's position was that the granting of the floodplain was for safety, not to increase square footage of number of units, and pointed out that others are not allowed to modify a hazard in order to get additional units. Knight stated that he had requested 2 more units, and although he agreed with the concept (of not adding more units), he felt that there would not be any impact, and the zoning was still remaining the same. Piper stated that modification of the flood plain could increase acreage, but not add density. Patten stated that if one is approved, anyone could modify the natural environment and get more density. Viele was opposed to setting a precedence as was Donovan. Walters moved and Viele seconded to grant the request per the staff memo (which was not to increase density more than allowing i addltio unit on Parcel C). The vote was 4-0 in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 5:45 pm. ( • T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 25, 1985 SUBJECT: Stephens Subdivision Plat Revision The Stephens subdvision plat has gone through several revisions. The original figures for the Stephens subdivision were revised on October 8, 1984 at the Planning and Environmental Commission meeting. The additional square footage necessary to allow one more unit on Parcel C was obtained by realigning the lots lines for that parcel. This caused an increase in the number of total dwelling units allowed from 12 units to 13 units. Since that time, discrepancies were found in the actual gross size in square feet and buildable area square footage. The original surveyor had assumed that portions of the flood plain modification had been completed which, in reality had not been constructed. The new surveyor determined these discrepancies and has revised the gross square footage and buildable square footage figures for each parcel. The "February 1985 Development Statistics" blow show the new figures for each of the parcels. The staff felt that it was important to inform the Planning Commission of these changes. If it is felt that the subdivision plat should go through the review process one more time, the staff is willing to proceed with the application. However, it was felt that because the parcel. sizes and allowable number of dwelling units remains essentially the same, it was not necessary to go through the entire review process. All previous conditions of approval related to the minor subdivision have been completed. For any new construction on these parcels, a detailed analysis of underground cor<d'i~iorbs.and foundation design as per the Summerlie report will be required. z H W ~ LL ~ ~ O p C.7 X Z d ~ N Q X W ~[ W LL. 3 ~ O U J J Q N • C7 p Z r--~ LL I- O cn C/7 ~-+ U X ~ O W F- Z N ~--i I- N ~ N Z al - O r ~--' O (/) A • p ~-~+ i p W ~ rts 3 ~--~ ~ L~ O p i O J m O J O Q to Li O Z to Z W a w F- w N ~ ti w O J ca F-- Q L~ p J O' ~--~ ~ ~ m w N F- t--~ LL N Cn O' N N ~ Z C.'3 ~--~ N O Ln N lD N I~ M M LL') I~ r M l0 r O 0 0 O I~ O O N r N O 1,L7 N r O t\ M r r I.f) 1~ N M M lD r r r C7 C7 N C r 'b ~ RS •r +-~ to N O C ~ ~ Q f[7 i U i r i-~ d O N ~- C N r r r 01 . O O O O ~ O O M c}' ~' M Q1 00 N ~t LO r r lCS O r O d' 1~ t.f) M O lp l0 ~ lD N N O l0 M N r 00 i Q N Z U i Q CO C7 ~G ~ ~ O U p 01 O ~ r ~ N V) N i U C O •r M W O r~ M N 3 O N ~ O r i ~ rt3 ~ O N r rtJ r .~ N '~" 4- N O O rO r U r rC3 V 41 i 4- N •r O N N r .~ rO 3 0 r r ~ ~~ O •r O O ~ N ~ O O r ~ ^ r ~ ~ r QJ 3 ov ~ r N ~ O Lc') ~ 3 M C I~ O N • r ~..1 O +~ •r- lp r0 C r r ~ in ~ 3 r rC i-~ tO U +~ -K O I- O lD N 1~ M OO M ~ I'~ l0 r M t0 r r N ~ O O O ~ O I~ CO N r I M N O ~ N r O I~ M r r I.f) 1~ N M M l0 r r r O O r r0 ~ ~ C •r ~ ~ i 7 r i- r r N Ol O O O O ~ O O M ~ ct M Ol 00 N c!' t~ r r tp Q1 r t.C) Lf ) N N M .-i O O O N O r O ~ O O O Cn ~?' 01 M Ql Ln t~ r M N ~O O M N ri OO lD ~--- N Ct tCf ~ +-~ Ql r O r N I- U i ¢ CD U p O ~ a. F-- U l~ 00 M O Ol .-1 N ~D O O r M I~ N r N O ON. O O I~ O O O N r M 1~ 00 Ln O O r l0 M O N N O l0 O Ol N M M 1~ L.C') r N r ~ i-~ ~ •r ~ C i ~ r r r O O N .~ II~ ~ O • r {.1 Q +~ O v N C N •r Y r 'p N ft3 •r -F~ N r C C OJ O + i U r r N Ql M i; N H Z w w O' W O O O O O ~ 1~ 1~ d' O 00 00 N Ln O l0 W CO N et O M Z O r r lD O N e--~ W f•-- N w E) M N N CO Ln r d' r 1~ Gi' `.--~ al M Ql Ln 1~ I-- r M O - l0 O w M N r 00 l0 • p r-1 ~--~ ' N C/ ) W r ~ lC) }~ ~ F- r- 4 07 U p m N W r $.., 1..~ rtJ ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~, ~. MEMORAND~ • TO: Stevens File FROM: Andy Knudtsen DATE: April 17, 1992 SUBJECT: Flood Plain Issues ~~ ~~~~ t ~~~ G~ ' ~ ~'~ -f> ;~ ~ ~ t vy' `J ~~ '~ ~ ~~ ~. ~ lv~ ~~ C/~1 ' ,r ~ a/ , /~ ~~ `y (J ~ y~,. a ~ ~: ;~ ~.,,~ :..6 ::• :v vv: ::::. ~::::::: ~::.~::i:}• ..............yi':iL?vi}}•.:ii:. iii •{:4i;<•: ~i:::.:::.::: ~.v ..~{n:v:::: •::.:~{: •.v:. ~ ...~ ~.. .r .::S.r+r.•'nri:•:i~i:•i:..^!.:L•iiii:~:ti.: ~iitiL!:i•i;'•} ::. ~: :.:::.v::::.~:::.:. ~::. ~:.: ~::::.. .. ... .n • t.. .... . .n.. . ...n... . . .... .. •..:. C:~tii: •:.::{p:'~C:..'i iiu~~y .~ ~A ~, r... ...... .. /.:. 'i::S iY?.: i}i;:i i'ri !:ii:;:::•,i:y:;F?i:;`.:;'r::`v<:•. ..... r ~~ lL The history of the Stevens file shows that, on August 12, 1976, the Eagle County Zoning c,.4~'~_ /~~~ Board ~f Adjustment approved a variance for AI Stevens to allow him to backfill the floodplain.~,r~ ~ , 1984, the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission reviewed a request by ~~~ X11 AI Stevens to subdivide his property into four lots. The floodplain issue was evaluated at that \Y~ ~,~ ~ time, and the berm along the floodplain was recognized as the legitimate floodplain boundary. ~, ~~~I ~'~ A floodplain analysis by Johnson & Kunkle Associates, with letters dated July 5, 1983 and ~~~ ~ ~ August 5, 1983, show that the floodplain alignment defined by the berm will leave the flood ~~~~ ` ~~ "flow rate ...basically unchanged, causing no detrimental effect on the properties along the ~~ :_{~ stream." It appears that the floodplain boundary along Lot C {currently owned by Chas ' ~-~N~ Bernhart) was approved on May 4, 1984, and is graphically shown on a map prepared by ~, Johnson & Kunkle with the original date of July 7, 1983. ~~ ~ ~ At this time, prior to any application from Chas Bernhart to develop Lot C, the Town of Vail will V~~~,~n~~. '~ need a current survey showing all improvements (fence, gates, utility boxes, etc.) and the fir" ~ ~ elevation of the berm as it exists today. Boulders on the property should also be shown. ~'+ ~' ' Elevations of the boulders do not need to be provided. Once the survey information has been completed, an engineer must evaluate the elevations of the existing berm and compare them ~'~`~~ to the floodplain analysis, dated July 7, 1983, which was done when the lot was subdivided. The elevations should be the same. Presuming the elevations are the same, the lot can be regraded, provided that the lot is not filled higher than the current berm elevations. Another issue which must be resolved prior to an application for development on Lot C is that a soils engineer must test the compaction of the berm to verify that it can withstand the forces of a 100-year flood event. If the compaction level is substandard, the berm must be rebuilt to the elevation it is today, at a standard which will withstand the forces of a 100-year flood. If the berm needs to be rebuilt, the boulders on the site could be used for the reconstruction. I visited the site with Greg Hall on the afternoon of Aprit 16, 1992, and discussed these issues with him. INTRODUCTION • A strip of floodplain land lying along the north side of Gore Creels downstream of the Kimlickinick Road Bridge in West Vail has been the site of residential land development activity and proposed activity over the last thirty years. Two official floodplain maps, several unofficial maps and associated documentation have described flooding characteristics of this area. In addition, the area has been subject to several versions of floodplain regulations over this period. The continuing development activity in the floodplain has clearly identified a need to resolve inconsistent floodplain use and regulation in a maimer that is fair and institutionally acceptable. This study addresses the 100-year regulatory flooding characteristics of the approximately 700 foot long reach of Gore Creek immediately downstream of the Kimlickinick Road Bridge and the short teen and long teen means for addressing land use in this floodplain fringe. This covers five parcels of land labeled A, B-1, B-2, C and D (moving in a direction from the downstream end of the reach to the bridge) as shown on the attached plan view drawing. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE General This nan-ative is provided to explain the general condition of 100-year flooding as impacts these five parcels. It is based on best available information and not an exhaustive evaluation of floodplain snapping or the history of the development of these parcels. Evaluation of Past Floodulain Manpin~ The first modern floodplain mapping of this area (CWCB 5/1975) at a 1"=100' scale shows parcels A and B-1 essentially completely flooded, parcel B-2 and parcel C approximately 75% flooded and parcel D approximately 25% flooded. Kimlickinick Road and. the bridge over Gore Creek did not exist at that time. Parcel B-1 was occupied by what appears to be a residence (presumably, essentially the same residence as currently exists) shown as flooded. Parcel B-2 was. occupied by what appears to be a garage and a shed (presumably, essentially the same structures as cun-ently exist except the garage, which we understand has been converted to a residence) shown as flooded. No other significant structures are shown. The Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) (FEMA 5/1/1985) at a 1"=400' scale appears to have been taken directly from the CWCB (5/1975) mapping and provides little additional meaningful information. It probably does not reflect physical conditions that existed in 1985. A 1"=30' scale map (JKA 1983) produced in the 7/7/1983 to 9/2/1983 time frame shows fill has been added to part of parcel A to "raise existing structure above 100 yr flood plain" and a north edge stream side berm being proposed from the centerline of the aforementioned garage on parcel B-2 (where it is labeled as "tie to exist. Conc. Wall"), . Kimuckiniclc Road Area Floodplain Evaluation February 14, 2006 . continuing upstream to the approximate location of the current Kimlickinick Road Bridge. "Topography and floodplain data" are based on the aforementioned (CWCB 5/1975) mapping; however, a note appears on this map that "The 100-year floodplain limits on the North side of Gaye Creek are based on a future berm in place". This drawing appears to represent an attempt to document removal of most of the land occupied by these parcels from the floodplain. It is not known if new hydraulic calculations were completed at the time this drawing was produced, nor what the institutional status of this drawing is. As a side note, neither the proposed berm or levee nor the concrete block wall existing on parcels B-1 and B-2 have meaningful physical value in preventing flooding and, by today's standards, would not change the status of flooding on parcels B-1, B-2, C and D. Evaluation of Pronosed New Floodplain Mapping Mapping produced from aerial photography in 1997 (Aero-Metric 7/1997) revealed a number of significant ground surface changes, surmnarized below, that had occurred on these five parcels since 1983. • Filling and possibly grading on parcel D producing an "under construction" designation on the drawing • The existence of a residence and associated filling/grading including the creation of a driveway "sump" on parcel C i~ • Filling and grading of a low been along the top of the Creek bank bordering ~ parcels C and D • The existence of a home on a fill on parcel A • Little, if any change to parcels B-1 and B-2 • Kiimickinick Road exists A new flood insurance study was produced using the 1997 mapping base. The resulting flood insurance mapping (not yet finally adopted) (FEMA undated) shows the majority of the parcels A and D not flooded and over 50% of parcels B-1, B-2 and C flooded, including all significant buildings on these parcels as noted below. • Most of parcel A and the residence located on it is no longer flooded, apparently having been raised higher than the floodplain by filling the site • Most of vacant parcel D is no longer flooded, apparently having been partly raised higher than the floodplain by filling the site • Most of parcels B-1 and B-2 remain flooded in spite of a largely ineffectual attempt to connect a concrete block wall (date of origin unknown) to a partial earth bean on parcel C, presumably to prevent flooding Kinnickinick Road Area Floodplain Evaluation February 14, 2006 • Parcel C remains flooded in spite of site filling and the construction of a partial earth berm, presumably to prevent flooding • Most of the land on all the parcels and all of the structures are located outside the floodway • The flooded area back from the edge of the floodway is essentially ineffective in conveying floodwater and has little meaningful value as a floodplain Evaluation of Probosed New Floodnlain Hydraulics The hydraulic model for the new flood mapping, which is cuiTently in the adoption process, was evaluated to ascertain the appropriateness of the hydraulic calculations in this area. It was found to be generally in accordance with FEMA standards, although lacking in the site specific hydraulic and topographic detail needed to fully describe flooding characteristics impacting each parcel and residence. Oniy three modeled cross sections exist in this 700' reach of Gore Creek downstream of the Kimzickinick Bridge. The upstream cross section (116.5) is positioned through parcel D, the next downstream cross section (116) is positioned between parcel D and parcel C and the most downstream cross section (115) is positioned at the downstream edge of parcel A. A drop in hydraulic grade line of over fifteen feet occurs in this reach. h~ the most problematic reach between cross section 1 ] 6 and 115 a drop of 13 feet occurs in 450 feet of chamlel length. Flood elevations between these cross sections are interpolated. A flood elevation accuracy of better than 0.5' is difficult to obtain with this level of definition of the hydraulic grade line. • Confidence in the accuracy of the computed water surface elevations is further compromised by the fact that a critical depth computation occurs at cross section 116 in a subcritical computation mode. This means simply that the model could not compute a valid elevation and started over at an assumed hydraulic condition of critical depth at cross section 116. The elevation computed at cross section 116 is therefore known to be imprecise. In addition, that elevation indicates flow splits out of the chaiu~el, flowing around the residence on parcel C along a distinctly separate hydraulic gradient. A split flow hydraulic analysis was not performed for this single parcel as this would typically be excessive detail for a FEMA flood insurance study. Flood limits were plotted based on the oversimplification that the flow profile along Gore Creek controls flood elevations in this reach. Evaluation of Current Area Manpina Local detailed ground surveying in the direct vicinity of the subject parcels, which was updated and expanded in October (PLC 11/2005), illustrates only one significant ground change in this area. That change (based on comparison with the 1997 aerial photography) appears to have been the leveling and grading of the irregular surface on parcel D previously described as "under construction" to a uniform gradient varying from elevation 7840 to 7836 across the parcel. This activity appears to have occurred almost entirely outside of the proposed floodway and floodplain limits. I~izmickinick Road Area Floodplan~ Evaluation • CONCLUSIONS February 14, 2006 A review of existing inforniation allows the following conclusions to be reached: • The 1975 flood mapping probably depicted a correct description of flooding for this area in that it shows significant parts of all five parcels impacted by flooding and therefore subject to floodplain regulation. Despite this general area being designated as floodplain, two new significant. residential stz-uctures have been constructed in the thirty year interim period in this area. Both parcels were filled on and graded to facilitate residence construction. The residence now existing on parcel A is not now within the floodplain. The residence now existing on parcel C is surrounded by water, the downstream half of which is above the flood level and the upstream half of which the floodwater reaches the edge of the foundation, the net effect being that the residence is effectively flooded. • Cun•ent proposed floodplain mapping probably depicts an essentially correct description of current flooding conditions, with two exceptions. The first exception is that a refinement in actual flood limits is now possible due to the new more detailed mapping which is available for this area. This exception has little real impact on the simlificant issues in this report. The second exception is that it is likely that only a small amount of water actually passes north of the parcel C residence around the east edge of the residence itself, along a hydraulic grade line distinct from that of Gore Creek (spatially varied flow), causing flooding (along with local zluloff) of the driveway sump on the north side of the residence and an unknown actual. amount of residence flooding. This spatially varied flow passes around the north side of the residence along a higher profile, over the driveway and returns to the normal floodplain past the west end of the residence. This spatially varied. flow was not modeled, as such the tz-ue water surface elevations around the north edge of the residence on parcel C are not known. The mapped flood limits are only approximate as they are based on Gore Creek water levels. On the basis of Gore Creek water levels the driveway and west end of the residence on parcel C are not flooded (even though the flood map shows they are), and in actuality, spatially varied flow surrounds the residence as illustrated by the mapping. The buildings on parcel B-2 are flooded partly due to levels in Gore Creek and partly due to the spatially varied flow passing around the residence on parcel C. The residence on parcel B-1 is flooded due primarily to flow levels in Gore Creek. HYDRAULIC REFINEMENTS Two aspects of the site hydraulics were ide~ltified as in need of evaluation. The first was the need to model Gore Creek hydraulics in this reach by using more Creek cross Kiiuiickinick Road Area Floodplain Evaluation February 14, 2006 sections, more accurately reflecting topographic conditions along the Creek. This also helped determine if flow truly diverts around the north side of the residence on parcel C. The second was to compute the hydraulic grade line of the spatially varied flow around the north side of the residence on parcel C, if applicable. To accomplish this, two cross sections were added to the model between cross section 115 and 116; 115.4 is positioned tlu-ough the residence on parcel B-1 and cross section 115.7 is positioned innmediately upstream of the shed on parcel B-2. The hydraulic model was otherwise left unchanged, was reconfigured. and re-run. The result was that a critical depth computation occun-ed at new cross section 115.4 (again indicating a mathematical balance could not be achieved in the assumed sub-critical flow regime) producing an elevation at this location lower than that interpolated from the original model The elevation at cross section 115.7 was computed normally, and, as expected, also has an elevation lower than the interpolated value. The new model produced identical elevations to the original model at both cross section 115 and 116. As a result the new model was judged to be no better than the original, less detailed, model and in some respects is less reliable due to the occurrence of a critical depth computation at a key location. Since the new computations were not considered more reliable than the original ones, and since it was judged that making additional adjustments to the model to make it more realistic was deviating too far from the hydraulics of the flood mapping under adoption, the model was not further modified. Based on these results, it was also concluded that completing a split flow evaluation would not produce significantly more meaningful results nor would this refinement be favorably considered by FEMA. No further hydraulic refinements were therefore performed. Since the expected filling and grading changes on parcels B-1 and B-2 do not change stationing or elevations on the cross sections in the original model, the model will show no impacts to adjacent parcels or changes in velocity or quantity of floodwater. Likewise, since the new model does not show significant overbaz~h flooding of parcels B- 1 or B-2, the expected filling and grading changes to these parcels in the overbank will have no impacts to adjacent parcels or will cause changes in velocity or quantity of floodwater. INSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS This subject is, for the most part, outside of the technical issues addressed in this report. It is however, a significant and probably the most important consideration in the solution of the problem. Institutional issues wluch are related to the analyses presented herein may include the following items (and others) which should be further considered by the appropriate entities. • The Town currently prohibits construction in the floodplain, however, floodplain constriction has occurred along this reach of Gore Creek over the last thirty years Kiimickinick Road Area Floodplain Evaluation February 14, 2006 . Construction within the floodplain fringe is an activity that can Ue conditionally permitted by FEMA and Colorado State criteria (i.e., it is likely that local criteria control floodplain development in this instance) • The Town requires a fifty foot set back from Gore Creek; a requirement that is more limiting than the floodway or floodplain restrictions at some locations • We understand that parcel D is Town owned and has been subject to some filling and grading which potentially includes some property within the floodplain • Town restrictions exist that govenz how much non-conforming buildings located within the floodplain can be added on to or revised without having to bring the entire building into conformance with current requirements; FEMA has similar criteria • Parcels A, B-1, B-2 and C are already in use as single family residential land use • New floodplain construction has occun•ed on both sides of the non-conforming use buildings on parcels B-1 and B-2, possibly adversely impacting the flood characteristics on these original buildings in this area • Parcels B-1, B-2 and C are accessed via easements to the South Frontage Road across land owned by either the Town (parcel D) or CDOT, and it is assumed this ~ ~ will continue to be the case in the future. These easement areas will likely be impacted by minor filling and/or transition grading in a manner yet to be ~ determined, the specifics of which are not further described herein. FINDINGS The following findings follow logically from the conclusions and evaluations. No action on parcel A is needed except as to enable a smooth physical transition across the property line to parcel B-1 where the more significant physical impact occurs. The impact of this transition is expected to be minor. No action on parcel D is needed except as to enable a smooth physical transition across the property line to parcel C where surface grading and landscaping activity may need to occur. The impact of this transition is significant as it will disturb some already established constructed features and landscaping on parcel C, but the transition should be able to be accomplished in a mutually satisfactory maiuler to both parcels. • Parcels B-1 and B-2 should be protected from flooding in a maiuler that maintains the single family residential use of this area. Dry access from the north should be provided during flood conditions. This will likely require minor transition impacts to the parcels A and C on each side. Kiw~ickinick Road Area Floodplain Evaluation February 14, 2006 • Parcel C should be partially graded and landscaped to protect the building on this parcel from flooding on the east side, to prevent spatially varied flow around its . north side and to facilitate dry access to the residence during flood conditions from either or both the northeast and northwest. The physical impact to Parcel C is significant as it potentially impacts the driveway sump in the area of the entrance to the garage. SOLUTION OPTIONS The following prospective solutions evolve fi•om the findings of this evaluation. A consistent assumption is that the land use will continue as primarily residential. All reasonably feasible options are described for comprehensiveness. All the options except "no action" will likely involve institutional processing including a CLOMA/LOMA or CLOMR/LOMR tlu•ough FEMA and Town permitting. • Construction of a Creek edge levee • Raze the buildings and fill parcels B-1 and B-2 to an appropriate flood protection elevation, then rebuild on these parcels; this includes preventing or accommodating flow around the north side of the building on Parcel C and processing a CLOMR/LOMR • No action • Re-evaluate the hydraulics and produce a more customized and detailed • floodplain mapping in this area as the basis for a CLOMR and/or LOMR as applicable (involving a detailed foundatio~~/first floor elevation survey and split flow hydraulic evaluation) • Fill localized areas which are proposed for new constr-uctioii to an appropriate flood protection elevation and processing of a CLOMR-F/LOMR-F • Floodproof existing a1~d new constivction as necessary EVALUATION OF SOLUTION OPTIONS A levee protected area could probably be constructed bounded by Kinnickinick Road on the Northeast and the South Frontage Road on the Southwest. Current "certifiable levee" characteristics include a need for three feet of freeboard aUove the 100-year flood elevation along its length and four feet at tie-in points. An earth Ievee consistent with FEMA regulations would take too much space due to its large footprint. It would also be such a visually and physically obvious structure that most people would consider it to be an unacceptable intrusion on the landscape. A stnictural floodwall would take less space, but would have similar inconsistent landscape impact characteristics. Either an earth levee or a structural floodwall would involve a need for significant disturbance of the area, provisions for handling intenlal drainage, involve signif cant expense and require potentially involved permitting. The owners of the parcels A and D would need to agree • 8 Kiiulickinick Road Area Floodplain Evaluation February 14, 2006 to a significant project partly on their land that they would realize little benefit from. Accordingly, this is not considered a reasonably feasible option. Razing the buildings on parcels B-1 and B-2, filling this area and reconstructing the buildings is a good way to achieve anon-flooded designation of this area. Unfortunately, removal of the existing buildings may not be economical or psychologically acceptable to the cun•ent owners. In addition, this requires involvement with the owners of the parcels on both sides iii order to achieve a topographically seamless fill surface across property lines. The potential impact to Parcel C is significant as the low area on the north side of the bui]ding would have to be filled to higher than the water surface elevation and graded to eliminate the driveway area sump. This is probably the best long tens floodplain correction option, but by itself does not provide a quickly implemented short term solution. 1 A no action alternative incompletely accommodates the recommendations.as it would probably be acceptable to the owners of parcels A and D but not to the other three parcels. Parcels B-1 and B-2 would remain non-conforming uses, effectively prohibiting their substantial improvement or replacement. Parcel C would remain mapped as flooded. The property value and availability of a real estate loan to a prospective new owner of parcels B-1, B-2 and C would be limited due their continuing flooded status. This is not considered a reasonably feasible option, but becomes the default solution should another option not be implemented. 1 ~ Hydraulics re-evaluation would not likely adversely impact parcels A or D, which will likely remain not flooded. Such a re-evaluation would not likely help parcels B-1 or B-2, which would remain flooded. Parcel C might be helped by a re-evaluation that sets the stage for its removal from the floodplain or helping to define improvements that could lead to its removal from the floodplain. This option provides an incomplete solution and will not be further considered as a stand alone solution. It does not provide a meaningful physical solution to the flooding of Parcels B-1, B-2 and C. Re-evaluation of FEMA hydrology, which could have the impact of reducing the peak flow rate and lowering the ' elevation of flooding, is not particularly meaningful way of reducing the flood tlm•eat and ' also won't be further considered. Floodproofing is not a truly reliable manner of protecting new construction. and is generally considered inconsistent with proper floodplain use criteria, particularly as a means of allowing new construction. This does not solve the problem of continued flooding of non-floodproofed existing buildings. Floodproofing should really only be considered as a last resort to protect high value nonconforming use existing buildings. Floodproofing is expensive and typically an unacceptable architectural encumbrance to property owners. This option will not be further considered. Elevating new constntction can be asite-specific short term solution that when taken to ' full implementation eventually becomes the option of filling the entire area located ~ behind the floodway. This option is relatively economical, can probably be implemented • on the basis of individual parcels and can be implemented relatively promptly. This Kimlickinick Road Area Fooodplain Evaluation February 14, 2006 option has the drawback of being a piece meal solution, not able to proactively address . nonconforming issues and can result in mismatched architectural features. It also would not allow the construction of below grade useable space. ENGINEER'S RECOMMENDATION There are several criteria that need to be met in suggesting a solution to the flooding issues described in this narrative. They should all be clearly identified and considered by the Town before developing a comprehensive solution to the issues. This narrative addresses the criteria that are teclu~ical and public safety oriented, although there is some unavoidable overlap with other criteria. The solution option that works best for this site consists of two parts. First it is recommended that from a long team standpoint the area behind the proposed floodway be allowed to finish developing to single family residential and related uses. This will involve filling areas which have not yet been filled to a flood protection elevation yet to be determined (the Town has verbally indicated that a flood protection elevation would be one foot above the 100-year water surface elevation) and building allowable structures on this filled area. The attached plan view drawing presents "tick" marks labeled with the interpolated even one foot 100-year water surface elevations to which an additional foot (minimum) must be added to an-ive at the flood protection elevation. Since al] the area may not yet be ready to be filled and constructed upon due to the current condition of the structures and landscaping, it is also recommended that there is a phased implementation of this long term plan that will need to occur. Since fill and development of the individual parcels has the potential of impacting each other, it is important that all the parcel owners participate in the solution and that the interim filling and development plan does not adversely impact parcels to Ue filled later as part of the long term plan. As part of that interim development, an undeveloped corridor of land will need to be left open between parcels B-2 and C, as is shown on the attached plan view drawing, to handle spatially varied floodwater. The specific conveyance geometry of the proposed ground surface modifications of this corridor should be subject to review and approval by the Town. Otherwise the frill land area located behind the floodway can be filled to the flood protection elevation. This corridor will need to be left open until such time as grading and landscaping can occur between parcels C and D to prevent the development of spatially varied flow. It is important to note that placing fill to elevate individual structures, as might occur during a phased filling of the area and the processing of a LOMR-F differs from a LOMR for the full area. A LOMR designates areas not flooded based on ground surface grades (without considering below grade features) and a LOMR- F does not allow below grade usable space. That is, if the long tern plan is to fill and re- grade the entire area to be outside of the floodplain, it should be processed as a LOMR, so that all structures (including below grade features) are considered outside of the floodplain. • 10 x v _____- _____- t 'a {~ s N ___ ___- -_____- P ~ U ~ N e~y6 .l ~ g.F e, ~3 ~~ E~~~ ~w~. f~, ,. .i~ `~~ `~'~\ ~; ~'' ~ raw ~'' d ;:, ~' ~;\ ` ~ i/ ~ ~ v~ ^ f~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i 11 ~ `~~ } . ~ 1t `'., .1 ~i.k~ _i .. `n` ~t, ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ f ~.~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~ V ~ d ~ ~ ti C ~.. ~ ~ 1 ~,'~, ~ ; ~ .~ •, p \\ ~ ~ 1 ~ ,l S ~ ~ ` 111 , ! ~ i ' 1 ~1 ~ ~ ~ ~j ~ '~, ~ i ~ ~, i 1 ~ ~( i r ~) ~ ~_ t ~ ~ { '~ 4 r` ~~-~ ~'a~-~~~^:.'_ ~ •, ~~p ``}~ tit J " l 1~ :s~t~ '4, `~ 1, ~,~\ S ~{ . 'N ~y~L~N`~~',~'~„~~~~~~' l: ~ ``\~~(.{\~, ~, ,. "3 1 •` ~ ~'~t '"1J ' it . ~ ~.~ 1 ~;-. ~ , a ~,1-.3 ~ ~` r ~~" ~~ '~ ~ i ~, ~, ~" , ~ a ~. w ~. ffS^^+ V l .~ O O v .~ r~+ ~~ ' - YC @g Y~1. f?€~'c - e ~`•~ ~.[= E~ s - F` ~ f"a Y1~ FtC ~' ~F":, ~ e ~ ~; ~~ ~ ~_~~a _.,...a^is z I ~ O ,. - _ ~ Q _ ~Y ~ a ~ - _: ~ ~ O3 Q ~ ~ ~ r ~ U o z ~ ~_ Z ~ ~ ::: ~ . o a F-ro ~ ~ Y ~/~UI- ~/ ~VJ W ~ W o. . W ~ a w WU) ~~ aZ ,J3oa `~~ w \ UJ 3 ~ p ~~ ~ E ~. Z ~ SS .~ CnW~ €ao = W H ~ u ^U> ~ € :. ~EQ a s§~ ~~a c`y .E. e; ~ ~x .. <nBF~ ~I a; f' Attachment: D ~~ 1~. I ~ _ r c r. _. G _ i ~~ 1 ~ _p dl `'. 11 f ~ C ~ ~ ~ • ~ ~I~ _- ~, ~? w F _ . - '. ~: J , j s W G -_r•1 O _ O ~ ~~ 1- ~1 / // Ss ~•d/ ;,:, 7 ~ 1 ~GS~S c-~~ ~ 6~ ~~` F~ ~ .. ~ -~ ~+ -M C - W' ~ ~Y r 1 ti~l W ~,}i c ~ `6 ~ 9 J ~ ~1 ~ rt v ~ l ~` Yk ~ ' r P~y~~ ~, c p ~;.s~M a -~jj -~ ~ . _ ~1--e 3•'. . ~:' / l >-°, / /,'~ .. ~\ ~~ R n~ \ ~`~ ~~ ^~d \ ,~.~ \~ ~;\ ~s~ ~ So~~ ~: ~ e:3 a'' ~._ m ,, F `~ n. ~ ,'i a ~. C e }~./ /\, U U n a ~~ ;' ~N W ~ W V2_ ~ W D ~ a d Z W ~ 4 ~ U i ~` i' '/`Y j~g¢e f i~ / ~~ao~~a ro ~/,~~~/ /, /,, , ~ ~ f~ ~, / i ga ~ -: r. / , ~' U `/ % ~,' Qom/ 0~•/;% //' i a n /: j j ~ ~~~, -_./ I ' x t "! a I o I^ o I J ~ .u2 ~e~ p~~, W V m ~ _w Q ~\ I n ~a r° ~_: ~~ / I„I II)) i~ h~ ~s= ~ ~ ~~ iv ~ ~ / d ~ ~ I of; ~p ~~ - ~~ .z° r ,\v ~` / / I N ~~8 i \ \ ~ / I .£ ~ y W ~ a / r y 4 J Y a~ 1 ~ ~ / " U~ 0- / " ~~ I ~ 3 ~ o s do e w U • / - /. '" / F w>~ .. / IG bit '- r.,.o,- w. ,Of,ll. Gf ~' o. ~o~ so ` x~ °; Y~=R = - _~m;" ;~s- , -X NZ''~ s ~w.+ c j _ __. ,; ~1 ~ 3 F "' ~'~ 'SY / /~~. ~`. a ,~,W< d O ._ > , ' / ~t \I~~/ i // _ ~ ~ _11,~\\ i i o i ~ ~ ~ ~ C . F / I` - ~'. ,~ ~~ < ~~~, \ \ ~~ ~. r _- ~ u.~ i Z S 0. J 8~ ify Q J _~ ~ ¢ r~ U a ~' • W > ' .; v ~' ~., _- J+~~ ~ 4 fi;' $ ,b ~~ ~ ~, , eX~.~~ 4 Y. L~ a~ $ ~. ~ b ~„1+S M~ ~g~~t ~~ &~ $ ~! ~ &~~ ~ ~~; O ' @~ ,~.~ ~ ~ 7 ~ ~°~ Q ~~ s~ W ~~ ~ ~ r~ ~~ U1 ~~gs~s. U1 Q Q ~ ~'e~~a4 ~d E6~s ~..~,a W^ a ~G_g~`4 H ~~e~s k a a ~ s ~~~~ Pa ~, ~~~~~~s& a ~ r4E~~~~; W ~ ~:~~ U =e~Y ~ fr[mF.wE3 .a d, d tk ~" O Q ~ d UO ~^ i ~ Q i ~ d it 1 i, ;~ 1 ,I ~* '~ 6 k6 Mt H F ~. S , g Yak ~~ V 7 A ~~ ~~ ~ i y Yr_~ ,18 4 ~f ~ 1 n~ ~~ ~ 5g `i`,'r'ouis ~~ f F ~ ~ . !4 6 2 R 6 ~ ~~' ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ "r~; ?;, ~ -- ---- . . Y i O ~E Yr ` ~~~ ^ ~ F' g4 . ~ ?~ q ~~ $ S 8 s ~ ~< ~ ~ 5 6 ~ ~~ Cd ~ f.,Y y~ S~ . YS § ~` ~ s 2 € ~' ~ a ~ i6 ~~ .yY Y b~ s Attachment: F ~~~~~~~ ! THIS ITEM MAPUBL C NOTOER PROPERTY NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with section 12-3-6, Vail Town Code, on April 24, 2006, at 2:00 pm in the Town of Vail Municipal Building, in consideration of: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for Ski Base Recreation 2 zone district on a 5.13 parcel of land commonly referred to as the "Front Door USFS land exchange parcel", located at 151 Vail Lane/ (A complete legal description is available at the Community Development Department), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0014) Applicant: United States of America, by and through the Forest Service, represented by Vail Resorts Development Company Planner: George Ruther A request for a final review of a variance, from Section 12-6D-9, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a site coverage variance to construct a residential addition, located at 1816 Sunburst Drive, Units A and B/Lot 1 Vail Valley Filing 3 and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0016) Applicant: John K. and Helen Jo Cahalin, represented by RKD Architects Planner: Warren Campbell A request for a final review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7H-7, Major Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the renovation of the Lion's Square Lodge North, located at 660 West Lionshead Place/Lot 8, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0019) Applicant: Lion's Square Lodge North Condominium Association, represented by Viele Development Planner: Bill Gibson A request for a final review of a text amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendments, Vail Town Code, to allow for an amendment to Section 12-21-14, Restrictions in Specific Zones on Excessive Slopes, Vail Town Code, to increase the amount of allowable site coverage on lots with excessive slopes from 15% to 20%, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0020) Applicant: Helmut Reiss, represented by Isom & Associates Planner: Matt Gennett A request for a final review of an amendment to a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7H-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, and a final review of an amendment to a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-7H-2, Permitted and Conditional Uses; Basement or Garden Level, and 12-7H-3, Permitted and Conditional Uses; First Floor on Street Level, Vail Town Code to allow for the development of 4 additional multi-family residential dwelling units (total of 111 dwelling units), located at 728 West Lionshead Circle/Lot 2, West Day Subdivision, and setting • forth details in regard thereto. (Ritz-Carlton Residences)(PEC05-0021 and PEC05- 0022). Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc., represented by Jay Peterson Planner: Warren Campbell A request for a final review of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for an amendment to an existing platted building envelope, located at 1722 Buffehr Creek Road/Lot 5, Block A, Lia Zneimer Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0025) Applicant: Crack of Noon, L.P., represented by KH Webb Architects Planner: Elisabeth Eckel Reed A request for final review of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for floodplain modifications, located at 2764, 2754, and 2695 South Frontage Road/Lots A, B, and C, Stephens Subdivision; and a request for a final review of floodplain modifications, pursuant to Chapter 14-6, Grading Standards, Vail Town Code, to allow for grading within the floodplain, located at 2764, 2754, and 2695 South Frontage Road/Lots A, B, and C, Stephens Subdivision, and 2450 South Frontage Road/Unplatted and setting forth details in regard. (PEC06-0001 and PEC06-0027) Applicant Town . of Vail, Louise Young, Brian Hoyt, Maggie Froning, Lorraine Howenstine, and Chas Bernhardt Planner: Bill Gibson • A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for proposed text amendments to Section 12-7H-5, Conditional Uses; Generally (On all Levels of a Building or Outside of a Building), to allow for seasonal use or structures as a conditional use in Lionshead Mixed Use I District; Section 12-7H-18, I~litigation of Development Impacts, to clarify the inclusion of employee housing as a mitigation of development impacts; Section 12-8C-3, Conditional Uses, to allow for ski lifts not including loading and unloading areas as a conditional use of the Natural Area Preservation District; Subsection 12-18-5B, Density Control, to clarify limitations on structures which do not conform to density controls; and Chapter 14-3, Residential Access, Driveway and Parking Standards, to clarify standards for access, driveway and parking for commercial properties; Vail Town Code, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0026) Applicant: Town of Vail, Community Development Planner: Rachel Friede The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call 970-479-2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request, with 24-hour notification. Please call 970-479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Published April 7, 2006, in the Vail Daily. • • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 24, 2006 SUBJECT: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for amendments to Section 12-7H-5, Conditional Uses; Generally (On all Levels of a Building or Outside of a Building), to allow for seasonal use or structures as a conditional use in Lionshead Mixed Use I District; Section 12-7H-18, Mitigation of Development Impacts, to clarify the inclusion of employee housing as a mitigation of development impacts; Section 12-8A-3, Conditional Uses, to allow for ski runs as a conditional use of the Agricultural and Open Space District; Section 12-8C-3, Conditional Uses, to allow for ski lifts not including loading and unloading areas as a conditional use of the Natural Area Preservation District; Subsection 12- 18-58, Density Control, to clarify limitations on structures which do not conform to density controls; and Chapter 14-3, Residential Access, Driveway and Parking Standards, to clarify standards for access, driveway and parking for commercial properties; Vail Town Code, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0029) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Rachel Friede I. SUMMARY The applicant, Town of Vail, is requesting that the Planning and Environmental Commission forward a recommendation to the Vail Town Council regarding the proposed text amendments to Section 12-7H-5, Conditional Uses; Generally (On all Levels of a Building or Outside of a Building), to allow for seasonal uses or structures as a conditional use in Lionshead Mixed Use I District; Section 12-7H- 18, Mitigation of Development Impacts, to clarify the inclusion of employee housing as a mitigation of development impacts; Section 12-8A-3, Conditional Uses, to allow for ski runs as a conditional use of the Agricultural and Open Space District; Section 12-8C-3, Conditional Uses, to allow for ski lifts not including loading and unloading areas as a conditional use of the Natural Area Preservation District; Subsection 12-18-5B, Density Control, to clarify limitations on structures which do not conform to density controls; and Chapter 14-3, Residential Access, Driveway and Parking Standards, to clarify standards for access, driveway and parking for commercial properties. • Based upon Staff's review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental Staff: • The Town Staff facilitates the application review process. Staff reviews the submitted application materials for completeness and general compliance with the appropriate requirements of the Town Code. Staff also provides the Planning and Environmental Commission with a memorandum containing a description and background of the application; an evaluation of the application concerning the criteria and findings outlined by the Vail Town Code; and a recommendation of approval, approval with modifications, or denial. V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Town of Vail Zonina Reaulations (Title 12. Vail Town Code) Chapter 12-1: Title, Purpose and Applicability 12-1-2: Purpose A. General: These regulations are enacted for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town, and to promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that will conserve and enhance its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of high qualify. 12-3: Administration and Enforcement • 12-3-7: AMENDMENT.' C. Criteria And Findings: 2. Prescribed Regulations Amendment: a. Factors, Enumerated: Befare acting on an application for an amendment to the regulations prescribed in this title, the planning and environmental commission and town council shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested text amendment: (1) The extent to which the text amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the zoning regulations; and (2) The extent to which the text amendment would better implement and better achieve the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town; and (3) The extent to which the Text amendment demonstrates how conditions have substantially changed since the adoption of the subject regulation and how the existing regulation is no longer appropriate or is inapplicable; and (4) The extent to which the text amendment provides a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal development objectives; and (5) Such other factors and criteria the commission and/or council deem applicable to the proposed text amendment. • • Issue: Staff requires that mitigation of development impacts include employee housing. Therefore, staff feels that Section 12-7H-18 should include "inclusion of employee housing" in the listing of potential mitigation of development impacts. This change should occur to clarify the inclusion of employee housing in any development applicant within the district. 12-7H-18: MITIGATION OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS: Property owners/developers shall also be responsible for mitigating direct impacts of their development on public infrastructure and in all cases, mitigation shall bear a reasonable relation to the development impacts. Impacts may be determined based on reports prepared by qualified consultants. The extent of mitigation and public amenity improvements shall be balanced with the goals of redevelopment and will be determined by the Planning and Environmental Commission in review of development projects and conditional use permits. Mitigation of impacts may include, but is not limited fo, the following: inclusion of employee housing, roadway improvements, pedestrian walkway improvements, streetscape improvements, stream tract/bank improvements, public art improvements, and similar improvements. The intent of this section is to only require mitigation for large-scale redevelopment/development projects which produce substantial off site impacts. ISSUE: The Agricultural and Open Space (A) District includes the "Bridge to Nowhere" which has commonly been used as a ski run. The A District already has "ski lifts and tows" as a conditional use, but adding "runs" as a conditional use will allow the Town to • properly regulate runs in the A District. It will also make the lower ski runs adjacent to Cascade Village legally conforming. 12-SA-3: CONDITIONAL USES: The following conditional uses shall be permitted, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title: Any use within public parks, recreation areas, and open spaces which involves assembly of more than two hundred (200) persons together in one building or group of buildings, or in one recreation area or other public recreations/facility. Cemeteries. Churches, rectories, and related structures. Low power subscription radio facilities. Private golf, tennis, swimming and riding clubs, and hunting and fishing lodges. Public and private schools and colleges. Semipublic and institutional uses, such as convents and religious retreats. Ski lifts, a~-tows and runs. Type 11 employee housing units (EHU) as provided in Chapter 13 of this Title. Well water treatment facility. • ISSUE: An omission in the Development Standards Handbook has led to a lack of • regulation for commercial properties regarding access, driveway and parking standards. The Public Works and Fire Departments have used the Multiple Family column in the table below as a means of regulation. However, codifying the commercial requirements will allow Public Works and Fire to require these regulations related to access, driveway and parking. Title 14: Development Standards Handbook Chapter 3. Residential and Commercial Access, Driveway and Parking Standards Table 1: Driveway/Feeder Road Standards Single-family, Two-family, Multiple Family Primary/Secondary -access to 4 to 11 Multiple Family and -access to not more than 3 dwelling units Commercial Standard dwelling units (including -feeder road only -access to more than 11 EHUs) dwelling units and/or -structures and all portions commercial properties thereof within 150' from -feeder road only edge of street pavement Driveway/Feeder Road • Min. Width 12' 20' 22' Normal -Access from feeder -Access from feeder to (Defail 1) road to units shall units shall comply with comply with single- single-family requirements family requirements contained herein contained herein Min. Width 15' 24' 24' 90° corner (cross-over) (Detail 2) Min. Width 16' 24' 28' Entrance/Curb- (flare to 16') (flare to 24' with 10' (flare to 28' with 15' curb- cut curb-return radius) return radius) (Detail 1) Max. Width 24' head in 36' 36` Entrance/Curb- 48' back out cut (Defail 3) Min. Grade 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% Centerline (Detail 4) Max. Grade 10% unheated 9% unheated 9% unheated Centerline 12% heated 12% heated 12% heated (Detail 4) 16% heated and • engineered with flat recovery areas • general welfare of the community. 2. The extent to which the text amendment would better implement and better achieve the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town; and Staff believes that the proposed text amendments better implement and better achieve the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and are compatible with the development objectives of the Town. 3. The extent to which the text amendment demonstrates how conditions have substantially changed since the adoption of the subject regulation and how the existing regulation is no longer appropriate or is inapplicable; and Staff believes that the proposed text amendments align the specific language of the Regulations with the accepted interpretation and implementation of the regulations. 4. The extent to which the text amendment provides a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal development objectives. • Staff believes that the proposed text amendments will facilitate and provide a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations that are consistent with the Town of Vail master plans and development objectives. 5. Such other factors and criteria the Commission and/or Council deem applicable to the proposed text amendment. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the followinq findings before forwarding a recommendation of approval fora text amendment: 1. That the amendments are consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town; and 2. That the amendments further the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations and the Development Review Handbook; and 3. That the amendments promote the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town and promote the coordinated and • harmonious development of the Town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of "7. That the amendments are consistent with the applicable elements of • the adopfed goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of fhe Town, and 2. That the amendments further the general and specific purposes of the Sign, Zoning and Subdivision Regulations and the Development Standards Handbook; and 3. That the amendments promote the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town and promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality." U • ii Apri120, 2006 Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Commission Members: I am writing this letter in opposition to the proposed expansion by Lions Square North Condominium Association, hereinafter "LSN". My wife, Ursula, and I are the owners of a two-bedroom unit at Montaneros. We purchased the unit three (3) years ago in anticipation of spending five (5) to six (6) months a year in Vail. Among the primary reasons that we purchased our unit is the expansive views of the mountain and the sunshine that bathes the property. The LSN proposed expansion will destroy the quality of life for us and all of the owners at Montaneros and for the guests who come to Vail to enjoy the mountain experience. It is this quality of life that you should be preserving in Vail. The town has already recognized this in the adoption of its master plans and Town Code. One of the avowed purposes of The Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan (the LRMP) is to "establish public view corridors to preserve the visual connections to • Lionshead's natural environment" (Sec. 1.3.3). In Section 4 of the LRMP, Recommendations -Overall Study Area", the Town determined: "as development and redevelopment occur in Lionshead, it will be vital to protect visual connections to the ski mountain. These visual relationships strengthen the identity of Lionshead as an alpine resort... Visual connections to the natural environment should be established utilizing the following techniques: 4.3.1.1 View Corridors. Creating and establishing view corridors is an effective way to link the urban core of Lionshead to the natural environment of Gore Creek and the mountain. The master plan is recommending the creation of several dedicated public view corridors. In addition, all private development and redevelopment should endeavor to create visual connections from and through their properties." (Emphasis added.) The LRMP recognizes in Section 4.3.1.2 the east-west orientation of buildings in Lionshead and proposes a solution to their impeding views of Vail's natural environment. It states: The predominant east-west orientation of buildings in Lionshead acts a • visual and physical barrier, interruotin~ the connection to the natural environment. It should be the priority in future development to orient vertical building masses along a north-south axis whenever possible.. This will help accomplish the following objectives: a. Sun Access, b. View from New Buildings, e. Views from Existing Buildings, d. Creation of Streets.(emphasis added) The proposed LSN project thwarts these objectives and would destroy the presently existing sun access and views of the mountain from Montaneros. The Board should not permit this nonconforming east-west building to more than double in height and act as a barrier to the views and to deny Montaneros sun access. In referring to Views From Existing Buildings, the LRMP notes: "Public input throughout the master planning process indicated that existing property owners in Lionshead are concerned that new development will block their private views to the mountain. By orienting new buildings on a north-south axis, the potential impact on existing buildings is reduced." The proposed LSN expansion is contrary to the recognized aesthetic reasons for being in Vail. It is the mountain with its beauty, the skies and the sun that attracts people to Vail. If we wanted to look at an 85 foot building wall that in some areas of the proposed expansion is less than 20 feet from the Montaneros building, which will block out the sun and eliminate any view of the mountain, we would have bought a unit in the middle of a city, not in Vail. I also note that the shade projections which are limited to only June 21 and December 21 and only at 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m., indicate that most of the units in • Montaneros rather than being in the sunlight will be in shade for most of the day in December. Of course, the elimination of any mountain view will be permanent, every hour of every day. With regard to the plan, I note that the east tower of the proposed expansion is not set back from the property line. In fact, it encroaches on the Montaneros property. The plans indicate that LSN has a prescriptive easement. There is no easement of record that permits LSN to build an 85 foot tower with decks on Montanero's property. Additionally the PEC should not permit the expansion of a building that has no setback from the property line, and which encroaches on the adjoining landowner's property. The building as it exists is in violation of the Town Code, Section 12:7H-10 which requires 10 foot setbacks from the property line. This section references the LRMP which permits build to lines only in the Lionshead Retail Core Area per section 5.8.1. LSN is not in the Lionshead Retail Core Area. The master plan provides in section 7.3 that the setback remains at 10 feet except under certain conditions that LSN can not meet. LSN should not be permitted to expand its nonconforming building which violates the Town Code, is not consistent with the LRMP and which has a negative effect on its neighbor. Regarding the western portion of the plan, the underground parking area which is aprt of the building and which includes the mechanical room located on Lower Level One is not set back from the property line and the proposed ramp leading into the facility is less than two (2) feet from the Montaneros building. It appears that the 82 foot west tower will be less than 20 feet from the Montaneros building. The existing building is almost 66 feet • from the western portion of Montaneros. I have been advised by Montaneros owners of units since the 1970s that the location and height of the existing LSN building was agreed • upon at the time it was built. I would imagine that there is some record of this in the Town's original approval files. I am sure you are aware that LSN was built on property that was originally owned by the developer of Montaneros. The Montaneros building was located on the property as Phase 1. Phase 2 was to be where LSN is now located. The Montaneros developer, Shareholders Recreation Programs, Inc., transferred the LSN portion of the property to Triple C Associates, the developer of LSN. The deed is dated June 17, 1974. The transfer was subject to the "restrictions and covenants of Vail/Lionshead, Third Filing, recorded October 15, 1971 in Book 221 at Page 991 in the Eagle County, Colorado records." The Protective Covenants sets forth their purpose to "establish and maintain the character and value of property in the Vail/Lionshead Third Filing area" It continues that the covenants "shall be deemed to run with the land and to inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the Owner, its grantees, successors and assigns. The Committee which was required to approve any building plans was required to consider the "nature of adjacent and neighboring improvements", and "the effect of any proposed improvement on the outlook of any adjacent or neighboring property". The proposed plan would destroy the outlook from Montaneros, and would not maintain its character and value. In addition to the aesthetic loss, I have also been advised by a Vail realtor that Montaneros units will lose more than $100,000.00 each in value if the LSN expansion takes place as proposed. It is laudable that LSN wants to upgrade its building, but it should not be permitted to do so at the expense of Montaneros and its owners and in violation of the objectives and purposes of the LRMP. LSN can upgrade the exterior and interior of its building without increasing its height or size and maintain the visual connection between Montaneros and the mountain. Its application should be denied. Thank you. Very truly yours, Bunce D. Atkinson and Ursula Atkinson • L • • _ ~~ l m c,i m c ~o - - ~-c~yoaE o .~O ' N ,~uc~__3a iE m ~ N O ns E~mr Eo O n' crn.o °nm°~ OO> C ' a L N m CCj3NS'Z`OV [6 ,-~- Ui.NO 6~ > O O. L m'-c p, OfOm"L d' J _ Uc6 0. GGa - N mC ~ Cm ~O mO Or ~.G OO~Gy 0.. .. ... m O Jm~ N OCZ` NmN '.O m`UO~U~ O'in Ntl UD r d Y CNL 9' miS m... >rCC C L.~~ O'-~ O ~ mm E T 9~~ ;~ 'S'mo+ N;ai oaG~Q1a O~4~d mm tb fn N . ?ycn ~o°oc°~E ri ~a~` ~i `°aGi vV CGamr ~ C b UNE 7 5c mo~c~3 ° O Q ~`°n'm m N a_O a dl~ 0ldON i O L ,.-~ C N ~" pp U O ]O ~D~YtpU UNA E m O G C U U N~ C O Vl 0 4 Z' O 01 E NRm~ P p C cb U 7 0. G m E m 7 '%1 ~= m .. N~ ~ i0 tO ro tC O ~O t t~ 7 C ( C. O i,~, a C L O ~p J" t 0 '' N"'NGC "'U QO7 T ~ ~ ty 9 0 N N c0 N ._ ~ B O G E O. O''O ~ O E GC C p~ i6 ~ N Q~ m S EEm OY U C m E m m L b .. 4 N E m U- .~ NC O GO~IJ> m Y O N L U.-. . 4j i0 a ~2y }, ~ ~COQf11~YO °~vC'~~j N_= O ~O~ tO T + om CO J .- CpCG t6 N~ C jC~e+~U~U C N"~-O~TS N.: N mm,,. 04i :=cuDO~m N' GCO'iC c0 m E tiU Q ~ 6Or U'... N T~ Oa~i ~ d0~ O O G Q yy m':- 1~Q„mU-m NU OG iC d J E N N m ] N ('}o and Lai y a NO O N Om ° m O- - l ~~~C},Cm O~ 0 O C~ NO7~p 1~~ O~N C6G ~lbJ % ~(3 ~jD'O''~ON NN~OGC~a O"mp0 ENNy~N NpFi .Q y«f C ~~C~(J 0 u. -o o 04 mCC S ~~ Cfn C-p OO GPL t`. ~ y - tl5 IIJ~~'~m` ~9U..'>v'a0 7 '0 W NRS O+ m~ 0~UlRU0.3 O E ~_p N=010-6>i i6N0' y O~p aQE O NU ` YC"O N `n~O~~ti~Q~+ C2]rn,,VN ~Nm Q [6 rG p - NU(~Oy G70LrQ ~Q - OC Qb ~ a R ~C ^oN- ~~ p I A UQJro m E~DIm L.~Oe6 ~... m N 0 0° %..- m.' N C 7, U_ 6C >i ~° ., 6. ~-o m C7 ° CL ON p,D> m C 0 U N v ~N~° >r O a 0+.~ .~ m c3cc~~~ L `~ c D > mm ~~pp ~qp/~ a~p co ~1.01~ U m'" yC0 -~ >+IL` F L ~ .r `m _ m o. •_°'y'g oco Th L rd -' c60aC 7 G m` pA C >'UO'.>~.-' m.:- y u> mvN m" EN ~' m m m i•S "cNE ' yy _~h C~~'c « Gr~~U ~: F yam OOO~iC ta6~ 06N CQ0 ya oa7y N O~~°O U7CmNNON~ CCN aV ~ G~L IU 'F:L ~ J N ~~ Ni0 ~7 N7A .C RS pC= m ~ - C 6yN~0 7 ° O.~.C ~- m' ~, _ N,r' N °'- E'-tDO'~a G O 11OL0170~.0~. 7A~NN ~ CC m Om c cL7 ll> (n~N d N'_~Ii mNN._ U> CEW'~j m m ro o.m m L `-n OQ N'> O0. F.-f6~ 'aC ~~~ ~ ' N~ C~@ j'U NCO r2 G m ioR7iil7` U 6 fn '... p„ _ _ O ~Oy N~ aaG N Q, ib ~j 001 ~tn N d4 O` m NC ~~1.;ONj m~OOIy~N~~_cC_N O ~ £ . -p yyr0 C~ OI ~, m~~ENN mcN oE' ao y j t~ ~ ON ~p C Ua 4V+' a °i~g~`~r'mLLC _ 4 m~` 'c` o m 44.6, aN 6O~~ ;~~. Y ~s•u~~ ~ } . ~//1~ e l./ ~ .e ,, y ~ ~ ~ ~~ .+ ..~ ; ~ ~ ~ • -C y!~~y"}~,~ '•'T,~7~^y~ -~ ~~ ~` ~~e~~~~ •/ ~c i~W ~~~~~ ,.: F. V 0 3 ~- o' CD x b N z '~ o `~: e m o ° ~ ~ N n C O ~ ~ N n ~~J ~ ~ G 0 0- Y -~ ~o a: - a o ~' o ~ ~ a O fD O 0 c S' Q O ti c~ 0 0 ~-*, Cl'1 O~q c~ 0 -n n O O a 0 5 c~ 0 -«, (D N G 0 o. J w f s' c 0 b ~a c~ a :' a ~o 0 J d N o° W ~ a ~ o Q' o ~' o ~ -~ ~' ~' '"' o a ~' w c~ ~, a w a a `C 0 v N O O O~ O- c~ C Q,. o' O H ~ a ~' ~ ~ ~. c~ ~ fD ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ cn b y o- a. n C <' 5- un w i]. y c~ c~ k a. aq .~_.. O ~- 0 ., W a ~' F w G a" a ~~ (D rn tro G ti a. ~ ~ c~ ~ ~' ~. Q' ~ _ CD n O ^h o~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C. `' ~n ~ G ~ ~ ,b x m co c a. -- ~ .~ =b ,b~~o-~,m~.o ~ a.o ao.~ ro A ~ ~ ~ ~ 5.'s7 ~ w ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ " ~' coo a' ~' ~ ~°.y, ~x :: a cu ci ~, ~' ~-, vo .-,, w a. ~ w o ~ ~ ~ e ~ ^ w co ~ a rn ~ o• ~ ,a m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ L]. ~ ~ 0 a' (1 ~ ~~`~~~~~ ~~ a 0 0 ~ ~ ~ f D ~* -- • sv ~ r;, • o co -~ Q~ ~-~ CD .~-. Kam' ~, Q `C '+ L.. ~~* ~ O .~+, CD v~. ts. ~ ~ °7 ~ v, C fIQ `r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c ~~°.°~ `~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n•• X F~ F~ r7 r» ~Q C ~ ~ ~ ~ ° ~ ~ Q ~! O `'~ ~ ~ ~ -C O p O ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~.~I ~ ~ 11~~~.yr l~~ '1~" C/~ ~ V7cDaWpw7]LD '0~-D ¢p(~-~^.y6oJw -~V3D 'ODDRnww-~yaD _ mSam-a cmw N~aroS-r3° :'.~S002w wya (DN3~NOC J caNfiww ~.•^N 7 9.n Sn wj°'n NOaVOro 30~w.yOroyjfnN J<ry=~- am a 7~fim ma-t-f w- n n 7n~y ~c ca . ~ QJ ~.Dn ~ FCry ~N7~~ O~C~~(¢91S0a~fllroy ~w.JJ y 00 AO ~N D'*~rm¢vc~ orm°='~'S'~ N73~Nry~D.. N~ O~N~N '°wnmc~°1o J ~'N'°GT ~Dm-'w_- .oo '~a°-'~"m o0 u;m'da~?. c w w ?'. ~_._mT °'ViQ1w-~ °' roa-"u~im_='wm_„ R 3 °~°.., g'mro~'~ wyro Dom- ~ ~ o ~,-.n..~ ~m'cwmN~!~f)d ~ wow ~,Q y~N'nam ~.w ww m Sro3ro-p~~°F Ow ooa~N.m~~ 3 m.a~~~~?oN?3.~o?~. ~ ~~e1p,J~NC. ~? ~mZm7o ~E o rron ~mc °-0-'ro 2~a @@y~f `~mo~C7oJWF D ~N,~a ~~O ~ n0 _0~.~ 1p j(JONLOy~ (D C7~ro O.n 3J0 a p _ [~ o. b 7C>x Nw ~Y'Dv'm `-°-.o (n'g~~w ~?~ y,+, ~ronJ DA' ~wma~ ~ 0 9vm3.C--J $... °' roswOOO3~m 1D N7F ~p xmw NS~J LrtG 3~p u' w .03 .J»NJ> > >» r( O~.a C' ~q3 'O NCB yCN ENO N l00¢ =(p ja ~r '`°^ '~°°-°v~ o, 'Jw~r~omnm~~~~°. vv~'9'~ogm3 J ~~10 jQ > 7 N NO A~¢N P, ~N j.Oi. N 170 £'~m~yQ ^i IL `C ~OitD O Gtw `G T100.0 T'_~.S.NO=Nw 4'• x<py7_:.. Y m jD¢(p ZOOID ~mDOwanoa tnD w,~ ~D~~w~1p~~o)D ampp-o-,-, m~oo~c-, cm -o J C.a Nf~J'£D~'D AND. O~n.N-.n(-¢DC ~'ro ~ ~ro w~¢Na~-IjA D».~_om'~ raj xOwo?om ~ s~sm~pomf ~~m O '.roO V.^roJ "'O 17 NQO~ 1p~-, Cj 1n .~C7C O' m<-nw.'ro-r~~o~w spa ~~mfi>U° ~ o-o~o.a~~~Q~c-• ap-'yro~'m~o~d ~~z ~D-wrotn~ 1a w,~~n3wwTU,o"~ mm~cnmmooacn, ~ w.warn,~w m 9ro ~w~oWwoo ~ma~°o ~'.~J _.mm new w7¢-.~ D mZ~S'~-~'~'- 0 3 omoc,^ m°m~~' °'Na ~°':ro NG7N .C. NnN O- Q~pdf ~3 3~~m71 v1 j-O j ro'2 ~ 2 ~ W~OJ~ D' ~ ~~yAaW d om° oq. ~moo`OOr%.y N°- ~ m m~o~<~~ Oao w+^~CO,~c7^ '..¢¢4'S''mo<.iw ` n~y~°i.m° gym-"' ~g~cn_ r:~ v1°o ~Jw 1~'0 ~ cn~w1? ~roowro .x~ o ~'wm w w m D mmTy , Jmm~Lw. n m=°w~ma a°»m `°n"'-¢m~o Z`°°'°. to o.. ° w m<w ~.ro-w m, ooDwn ~/m~~~wm w °~~~yoni ~¢m s3o¢3m3ro 7 gogm»° ~ (~9 tnno~~^ 3 - mw~o~o J-. 2 O _ - W ~ J _ 3 O. ~ tD N. J • cn N N 3.W Q ' ~ ~ Pry' dJ~wOC7 = N ~fo",°'m ~ P o~dom 9D ~ n-.~Q7 ~'S C ' -m7NL~ nT n. ~~w°m 2n Z °'~o°gz ~{ ~; mpJ~~ ~ m, c- mom v aof' w ~ k~. as rn~o~ ~~~~~ n N~ w j 9 ?oJFa ~ ~d~ n ~ '~ r. o c~ N W S ~N ~ ~ CD ~ ~. rs ~ ~ f7• ro Cl O C'1 b ~ ~ ~ ~ y Q ~ C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O O ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~. G ~D y ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ O ~ r '~ ~' CD ~ w ~- o a o ~ a C'" ~ n ..r A ~1 `s aNerae .Y ~ CD CD 'L~ rr o f9 r* ~D ??-???777'a ~ ~ .~~~c~o O a p, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N per, ~ O per, ?- • D CD ~t P~ f9 r-. .y ~ ,'~ ~ e J ~ e ~ ~`~ CD .+ D Ly ~ < ffQ ~ Gy (rq ~ w-~ • ro '» D p~ cc A~ ~ C/~ ,'~~;: !/, ;>, . 'tr p, ~ ~ ro co co -r C'' ova -+, p: ~o A' c/1 L t~ aeeje'~Qe ~.` '. ~ ~ ~ 'd ~ O. (V A ~ O .b ~ ~ C ~ ~ ' ~ K n~~' a' ~ ~' ~ rn ~ Fo N ~ ' ~ C .a ~ ^ R r* p ~ o ~ Y ~ ~ coo ~ ~ coo ~ G ro ~' O ~ ~ c D N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ . " o c~ C, 1 n ~ O C ~ ~ ~ `t, ~ `'< ~ p O N_, ~ N~ ~ p ~ H "K y O p O !D ,~ C.a ~ ~ a a ~ p. ~~oc~CJ cu G ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~'~ ~~ ~°- n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ r. c z o .~, H b~ ~, ~ c, ., ~ o~ ~ ~ c ~ ~ ~,~ r~ cn r., ~ ~ o OtG '~ o co O ~ N + O ~ '3 ~ d ti d a ,r. .+, r c Ncq w>.~ m _~ d~+o ism Ofrm$'._cca~QQ$ a >7~p~~d OM ooay~rn;=° ~n OEM O Y ~ Ui ~ O ~ w! ~ C ~~~' ~ N V .,, O Ri ... 7 l7 y y»Fyy~~W O~j ~~7Q ~c«~oQ ~: a~i TgY~~ ~'y~'y CL p~m$,~oaiE~e-~~ ~.,I~Tdy T7pO ~C ~c•-m~m~~°UW'0c °~mat~-3x3Wiapcp ~ _.~ 4~2 UJ;~ CN ~._ ~ 0. ~[t ~v~ m y • • r+ yy '9O AWN? a7'~Z ~.- - ~.®,j 37D Sfil '_ fG N~n~»~~N ?(11 Q~ yNldOm <~~Q gw rG~, ~~ w<~~w ..' ,if Ti's ~~b~ m~j~m v~`~~N~~Aw. aw'<~:3mk'o ~~ `=°O 9Ni~Na r~,N~~ «~ w~ ~ ~B n gM 9_0 ~' ~ ° m~~c°~-3- o. m~ ~m y.~ ~~ mnm yy -""'___.-_..: ~ .-~ yrir 4~~K 3~'~>3 D ~O ~ m rn ~' Nmz ~CC 'a C) ~ sa ~ ~ ~ y -~ ,----- sna Oc c3 ~vco <w~1 3 w 3 3 ~m> > ~'~ a~~~ o ~ ~ i. w n~ ~~~~ q~CO jP`~-'Sp3, ~ ~3g w t~ a.<Q 'AAA w"-+tDmvge~i+.~ c°n9~°~'~~~w~'.'.~<'.`o. jro ~~tD ot~mSar~S~ fn~nD 3 ~~~ r~4' ~.3"'"E. No j~~' ? oN~m»my nO,a. ~• ~ ~~~ ~~~n~ mwo~=d$gi~~ ~~ s~'o' nw ~~j go C p 8... ~~n-~-n~o0i~ {nm ~m fDO~ v3°tP O7'd < tn}3. y-i~.°c'< ~.~,cp~-'~gCm~ ~W8' ~.~.. IOC ~~N p'pC~~ O,~y{ ~ONW~ ~~N~`t a3~ tp wy ~-1 W e 3c7 ~e m o"~~y~,~ 3 ~-• ~~',.~ ~~cPia~~m~~ ~~. Quay ~g.p~ ~ :~~~y~. o~ n~~~o~mo my mn~_~3 ~ S ~~~~~V~~oEQCe d ~ co <w «o w p dwwdw.F7 a 'md~~~ .. < :a$~ J F- N W • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING . . ,~ May 8, 2006 T~?WNt)f ~AIt`' PROJECT ORIENTATION -Town Council Chambers -PUBLIC WELCOME 12:00 pm MEMBERS PRESENT Doug Cahill Dick Cleveland Anne Gunion Bill Jewitt Rollie Kjesbo Bill Pierce Site Visits: MEMBERS ABSENT Chas Bernhardt 1. Ritz Carlton Residences - 728 West Lionshead Circle 2. Eagle River Water and Sanitation District - 2734 Snowberry Drive Driver: Warren Swearing in of Anne Gunion by Lorelei Donaldson, Town of Vail Town Clerk Public Hearing -Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm • 1. A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a text amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendments, Vail Town Code, to allow for an amendment to Section 12-21-14, Restrictions in Specific Zones on Excessive Slopes, Vail Town Code, to increase the amount of allowable site coverage on lots with excessive slopes from 15% to 20%, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0020) Applicant: Helmut Reiss, represented by Isom & Associates Planner: Matt Gennett /Bill Gibson ACTION: Approved with Modifications (shown below) MOTION: Rollie Kjesbo SECOND: Bill Jewitt VOTE: 5-0-1 (Cleveland opposed) " 2. In order to protect the natural land form and vegetation on steep slopes, not more than sixty percent (60%) of the total site area may be disturbed from present conditions by construction activities. The Design Review Board (DRB) may approve site disturbance in excess of the sixty percent (60%) maximum if specihc design criferia warranf the extenf of fhe requested deviafion." In the absence of Matt Gennett, Bill Gibson presented the project according to the memorandum. Steve Isom, the applicant's representative, stated that the proposal set forth with Staff's help seemed sufficient. Dick Cleveland felt that the amendment was neither necessary nor desirable and he was in • opposition to the change. Page 1 Bill Jewitt commented that the argument of safety was not a good enough one to justify this proposal. He thought that citizens dealing with thirty percent slopes should be treated as fairly as those without thirty percent slopes. Bill Pierce stated that this regulation would offer a lot more flexibility in site planning for sites with steep slopes. This change would limit the number of homes which masses were located almost directly on the road. Doug Cahill thought that the new regulation followed the original intent of the Code. The Design Review Board should have the latitude to ask an applicant to reduce his/her site coverage to less than 20% if necessary. 2. A request for a final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-6D-3, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, to allow for a public utility and public service use (water tank), located at 2734 Snowberry Drive/Lot 14, Block 9, Vail Intermountain, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0031) Applicant: Eagle River Water and Sanitation District Planner: Elisabeth Reed ACTION: Approved MOTION: Rollie Kjesbo SECOND: Bill Jewitt VOTE: 6-0-0 CONDITION(S): 1. Prior to receipt of a grading permit from the Town of Vail Public Works Department, a letter from the property owner of Lot 15, Block 9, Vail Intermountain Subdivision, shall be submitted to and accepted by the Town of Vail Community Development Department that grants the applicant permission to re-grade and re-seed the areas of Lot 15 that will be disturbed as a result of the removal of the existing water tank. 2. Prior to construction, a copy of the de-watering permit shall be submitted to the Town of Vail Public Works Department. 3. Prior to construction, a staging plan and Public Way permit shall be submitted to the Town of Vail Public Works Department. 4. Prior to November 1, 2007, the applicant shall mitigate the visual impacts of the above grade portions of the tank to a reasonable standard. 5. This approval shall be contingent upon the applicant receiving Town of Vail approval of the design review application and required landscape plan associated with this conditional use permit request. Elisabeth Reed presented the project according to the memorandum. Jim Boyd, the applicant, expanded upon the description of the proposal and made himself available for questions. Doug Cahill asked if the DRB would be reviewing this application further. Elisabeth responded that the DRB had conceptually reviewed the proposal and would review it a final time at their next public hearing. Doug Cahill asked Jim Boyd to further describe the soil stability issues related to the water tank site. Jim explained the soil conditions and how the structure had been engineered to address the issues. Larry Kollusman, adjacent property owner, stated that he was opposed to a large concrete water • tank being constructed above his house due to the "unsightliness" of the structure, which might Page 2 result in decreased property values for himself and his neighbors. He would not be opposed to the installation of a below grade water tank structure, however. He cannot currently see the • existing tank, but believes the proposed tank will lie directly in the line of sight from his house. He also noted the number of trees proposed for removal. Jim Boyd acknowledged the potential impact to this adjacent property owner. He noted that the ERWSD had not finalized its landscape/re-vegetation plan. The District was planning to screen the tank from this concerned neighbor's house with a berm and tree plantings. The ERWSD was willing to plant additional trees to improve the screening of the tank. Larry Kollusman was also concerned about the proposed tank being four times larger than the existing tank. He suggested that a more extensive soils test might prove that the tank could be buried. Dick Cleveland asked about the rationale for a tank of this size. Jim Boyd responded that the tank was built in the 1970's. Additional water storage was needed to accommodate population growth and to meet fire flow needs created by sprinkler systems being required in recently constructed houses. He noted the flows analyst for the District would be more familiar with these questions. Dick Cleveland asked why the bids were not viable. Jim Boyd responded that the bids were too high and did not even take into account soil conditions and ground water conditions. Their engineers recommended placing the tank above ground. • Larry Kollusman noted that there were large new homes being constructed on similar slopes along this street and believed today's request was only a cost issue. Bill Pierce asked how it compared with the tank on the ski hi11. Jim Boyd responded that it is approximately one million gallons. Bill Pierce verified that the tank would not be taller than the tank it is replacing. He noted that the DRB needs to ensure this is well screened. Anne Gunion believed the request met the first criteria for review, the second criteria, and the third criteria. She believed adequate screening would make the tank comply with criteria number four. She wanted to see a landscape plan, or thought that the tank should be constructed below grade. She also wanted to see a letter submitted from a soils engineer. Dick Cleveland agreed with Commissioner Gunion. He wanted to see documentation justifying the size of the proposed tank. If the tank was screened as well as today's tank was, he was comfortable with the proposal. He was concerned about the proposed trees actually screening the tank. Something other than a solid paint color should be considered as well. Otherwise he was comfortable with the request. Bill Jewitt was comfortable with the request and believed the PEC's concerns were actually DRB issues. The goal should be to save the taxpayers on construction costs, but provide adequate landscaping to screen the tank. Rollie Kjesbo believed the ERWSD would not spend extra funds on a tank size that was not • warranted, and believed the landscaping and screening are DRB issues. Page 3 Doug Cahill noted the growth in the adjacent neighborhood, and noted the need to construct a safe structure. He also asked if an additional berm or retaining walls could be constructed to • better screen the tank. He noted the challenges of landscaping the site. He requested that Jim Boyd explain the proposed construction schedules. Jim Boyd responded that construction will not begin before late June and the ERWSD is concerned about the availability of bidders for construction this summer. 3. A request for final review of an appeal of an administrative action, pursuant to Section 12-3-3, Appeals, Vail Town Code, appealing a staff determination that an observatory is not an architectural projection allowed to extend above the building height limit, 1979 Sunburst Drive/Lot 12, Vail Valley Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PRJ05-0417) Appellant: Ned Gwathmey and Todd Kramer; Gwathmey, Pratt, Shultz Architects Planner: Bi11 Gibson ACTION: Staff determination overturned MOTION: Dick Cleveland SECOND: Bill Jewitt VOTE: 4-2-0 (Pierce, Cahill opposed) Bill Gibson presented the project according to the memorandum. Ned Gwathmey, the applicant, stated that the approved space was not habitable. He requested that the space not be regarded as Gross Residential Fioor Area. This was simply an architectural feature because it was not proposed to be occupied space. Both the Design Review Board and the neighbors seemed had no problems with the proposal, he stated. Anne Gunion asked if the drawings included in the memorandum matched those that were being proposed by the applicant today. • It was verified that the drawings included in the memorandum were no longer applicable. Doug Cahill asked about the proposed material for the tower element. Ned Gwathmey stated that the roof would be cast aluminum. He further explained the elevation drawings to the Commission. Ned Gwathmey asked if it would be helpful to have the owner explain the use. Dick Cleveland commented that such explanation would not be necessary. He felt that this proposal was clearly an architectural projection that warranted a height increase. He was in support of overturning the Staff's determination. Bill Jewitt also felt that the space was not habitable and was only an architectural projection. Rollie Kjesbo agreed with Commissioner Jewitt. Bill Pierce commented that as much as he would like to approve the projection due to its architectural merit, he felt that the precedent set in doing so would not be worth the approval. Anne Gunion said that whether it was occupied or not was not the issue. She stated that the guidelines were intended to provide for varying architecture. She viewed this as habitable floor area due to the definition of habitable floor area, but felt that the projection was warranted anyway. Doug Cahill stated that he viewed the space under question as habitable. It was clearly • designed, with glass, to be habitable by a person. Page 4 Anne Gunion further stated that occupied space was very different than habitable space. The element was far more a projection than a roof. . 4. A request for a final review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7H-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, and a final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-7H-2, Permitted and Conditional Uses; Basement or Garden Level, and 12-7H-3, Permitted and Conditional Uses; First Floor on Street Level, Vail Town Code, to allow for the development of 4 additional multi-family residential dwelling units (total of 111 dwelling units), located at 728 West Lionshead Circle/Lot 2, West Day Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (Ritz-Carlton Residences) (PEC05-0021 and PEC05-0022) Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc., represented by Jay Peterson Planner: Warren Campbell Amendment to the Major Exterior Alteration ACTION: Approved with condition(s) MOTION: Rollie Kjesbo SECOND: Bill Jewitt, VOTE: 6-0-0 For Desian Review 1) That the Developer submits a complete application to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for the final review and approval of the proposed development plan by the Town of Vail Design Review Board, prior to making an application for the issuance of a building permit for any of the Ritz-Carlton Residences improvements. Prior to Submittina for Buildina Permits 2) That the Developer submits a Construction Staging Plan to the Town of Vail • Community Development Department for the review and approval of the proposed staging plan by the Town of Vail Public Works Department, prior to the issuance of a building permit for the Ritz-Carlton Residences improvements. 3) That the Developer prepares aRitz-Carlton Residences Site Art in Public Places Plan., for input and comment by the Town of Vail Art in Public Places Board, prior to the issuance of a building permit for the Ritz-Carlton Residences site improvements. Subject to the above input and comment by the Art in Public places Board, Vail Associates will determine the type and location of the art to be provided. Said Plan shall include the funding for a minimum of $100,000.00 in public art improvements to be developed in conjunction with the Ritz-Carlton Residences site. The implementation of the Plan will be reasonably incorporated by Vail Associates into the Ritz-Carlton Residences construction schedule in accordance with generally prevailing construction practices. 4) That the Developer submits a complete set of civil engineered drawings of the Approved Development Plans including the required off-site improvements, to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for review and approval of the drawings, prior to making application for the issuance of a building permit for the Ritz- Carlton Residences improvements. Prior to Reauestina a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy 5) • That the Developer provides deed-restricted employee housing that complies with the Town of Vail Employee Housing requirements (Chapter 12-13) 9 employees, and that said restrictions shall be made available for occupancy, prior to the issuance of a Page 5 temporary certificate of occupancy for the Ritz-Carlton Residences improvements. In addition, the deed-restrictions shall be legally executed by the Developer and duly recorded with the Eagle County Clerk & Recorder's Office, prior to the issuance of a • temporary certificate of occupancy for the Ritz-Carlton Residences improvements. The Developer may provide required employee housing on an interim basis, not to exceed four (4) years (November 28, 2008) except that ultimately the Developer will be required to furnish permanent facilities for the Ritz-Carlton Residences employee housing requirements. 6) That the Developer shall be assessed a transportation impact fee in the amount of $5,000 per increased vehicle trip in the peak hour generated (56 trips), or $280,000, and a fee of $6,500 for the increased peak hour vehicle trips (6 trips) or $39,000, created by the amendment to add four additional dwelling units, as a result of the Ritz-Carlton Residences improvements. The total fee of $319,000 shall be paid in full by the Developer prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy or certificate of occupancy for the Ritz-Carlton Residences improvements. At the sole discretion of the Town of Vail Public Works Director, said fee may be waived in full, or part, based upon the completion of certain off-site improvements. If the improvements as shown on the plans entitled "The Ritz-Carlton Residences (based on CDOT requirements)", dated October 21, 2005, and as approved on November 28, 2005, by the PEC are constructed and completed by the Developer, said fee shall be waived in full by the Town. Amendment to the Conditional Use Permit ACTION: Approved MOTION: Rollie Kjesbo SECOND: Bill Jewitt, VOTE: 6-0-0 Warren Campbell gave a presentation per the staff memorandum, highlighting the changes that • the applicant was proposing. Jay Peterson, representing Vail Resorts, added some comments to the initial presentation, stressing the amount of open space that would be maintained on the site with this proposed amendment on the western side of the building. Mr. Petersen addressed several comments from the pre-meeting regarding the future layout of retail within the area known as "West Lionshead" and how the areas being set aside within the Ritz-Carlton would help to add to the success of retail in "West Lionshead". Mr. Petersen added that he had spoken with the attorney from Vail Spa, who commented that he wished that no after-hours establishment such as a bar ever be installed in the northeast corner of the Ritz-Carlton. Bob Fitzgerald, of 4240 Architecture, commented on the architectural story, saying that the proposal presented today was simply an exclamation point to the original proposal. The south western corner under discussion had never been proposed for open space, but had originally been proposed as the area to locate a lift house. There was no public comment. The Commission generally expressed its support of the amendments as the changes allowed the building to tamper more towards West Forest Road and helped to screen the new parking garage entry for the Gore Creek Residences. Commissioner Cleveland stated that he was fearful of the "creep" in size of projects through amendments made after initial approval, however, he felt the amendment made sense. Commissioner Jewitt stated that he still had concerns over the viability of retail/commercial/restaurants in the Ritz-Carlton structure and in • the possible future portal of "West Lionshead". Page 6 5. A request for a final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Chapter 12-8E-3, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of a private club; 151 Vail Lane/Lot 2, Mill • Creek Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0032) Applicant: Lodge Properties, Inc., Planner George Ruther ACTION: Approved MOTION: Rollie Kjesbo SECOND: Bill Jewitt VOTE: 5-0-1 (Pierce recused) In the absence of George Ruther, Russ Forrest presented the project according to the memorandum. Doug Cahill asked about negative effects of traffic. Jay Peterson said that while the parking club generates traffic, those that do not belong to the parking club but do belong to the private club will park in the Vail Village parking structure. This club will likely not create additional traffic. There was no public comment. The commissioners expressed their support of the application. 6. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for Ski Base Recreation 2 zone district on a 5.13 parcel of land commonly referred to as the "Front Door USFS land exchange parcel", located at 151 Vail Lane/ (A complete legal description is available at the Community Development Department), • and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0014) Applicant: United States of America, by and through the Forest Service, represented by Vail Resorts Development Company Planner: George Ruther ACTION: Approved MOTION: Rollie Kjesbo SECOND: Bill Jewitt VOTE: 5-0-1 (Pierce recused) In the absence of George Ruther, Russ Forrest presented the project according to the memorandum. Jay Peterson clarified that the Forest Service no longer is the applicant, as the property is now owned by Vail Resorts. Jim Lamont, representative of the Vail Village Homeowners Association, is in favor of the project but there are adjacent property owners who are concerned about the project. The primary concern of these adjacent owners is the preservation of open space. The concern is that what is now publicly accessible land should stay accessible. There is a consistency with the Tract D covenants that prohibit above ground development unrelated to skiing. They would like to know if the area wilt be publicly accessible. Russ Forest stated that in Page 7 of the memarandum, the skier services building will only be one story. Any change of the development plan will be required to go through the public process. • Page 7 Tom Braun stated that there are requirements in the conditional approvals to provide pedestrian easements from the skier property to Vail Road to the West. The access required by the • covenant will be maintained. Jay Peterson showed the view corridor on the map and noted where pedestrian easements exist. Covenants on the property will not occur because it will cause problems in the future. He also stated that this zoning will require the most public scrutiny. Bill Jewitt said that when the project went through Town Council, there were restrictions put on the project where open space is required to be used for public events. Jim Lamont requested a letter from the Town outlining the requirements of the pedestrian easements and other protections of the property. Jay Peterson stated the approval is what it is and that the development plan is the detailed outline of the project. Jim Lamont said that the public needs to have access to the surface of the site that is not being developed. Bill Jewitt mentioned that the comments by Jim Lamont are not pertinent to the current discussion. Jim Lamont responded that this is an important issue and needs to be discussed on the record. Jay Peterson outlined the requirements of how the land will be publicly accessed. He then read • text from the White River National Forest report by Tom Nacey. Jim Lamont asked about the agreement with Vail Resorts for public access for special events. Russ Forrest responded that the DIA will include such agreements. Jay Peterson said that the DIA will be final before TCO. The Commissioners expressed their support for the proposal. 7. A request for a final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-7H-5 Conditional Uses: Generally, to allow for a seasonal use or structure for conferences and conventions, located in Tract A, Lot 4, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 1 Addition 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0030) Applicant: Lion Square Lodge, represented by Bill Anderson Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: WITHDRAWN 8. A request for a final review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7H-7, Major Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the renovation of the Lion's Square Lodge North, located at 660 West Lionshead Place/Lot 8, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0019) Applicant: Lion's Square Lodge North Condominium Association, represented by Viele Development Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Tabled to May 22, 2006 MOTION: Rollie Kjesbo SECOND: Bill Jewitt VOTE: 6-0-0 • Page 8 9. A request fora recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for proposed amendments to Chapters 12-21, Hazard • Regulations, 14-7, Geologic/Environmental Hazards, and 14-10, Design Review Standards and Guidelines, Vail Town Code, to include wildfire hazard in the Hazard Regulations, and to require defensible space and Class A roofs in high and extreme wildfire hazard zones, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0029) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Rachel Friede ACTION: Tabled to June 12, 2006 MOTION: Dick Cleveland SECOND: Rollie Kjesbo VOTE: 6-0-0 Rachel Friede made a presentation per the staff memorandum. Bill Jewitt said he cannot support the addition of seasonal use and structures as a conditional use to LMU-1 because the regulations for this land use, especially tents, need to be amended. Dick Cleveland suggested that this use only be allowed for a maximum of 30 days and should be split into seasonal and temporary, with separate regulations.. Staff will propose these changes in the future. The Commission agreed that the word "plan" be added to "inclusion of employee housing" in order to allow a plan that may be coordinated with current housing initiatives. Dick Cleveland said that the Open Space and Recreation District should not add "and runs" to the conditional uses and that the Cascade runs should stay legally nonconforming. He is concerned that this may open the door for more runs in the O District. He was also concerned about allowing "Ski lifts, towns and runs, not including lift loading and unloading areas" in the • Natural Area Preservation District because this is our most restrictive zone district. Staff will provide a map showing the O and NAP Districts that border the ski mountain at the next meeting. Regarding changes to Chapter 12-18, Rollie Kjesbo asked whether this would trigger 250s. Staff responded that this text amendment would confirm that buildings that are over on dwelling units per acre would then trigger a 250, as they have used up all allowable GRFA. Dick Cleveland made a motion to table this item to June 12, 2006 so that Staff can return with changes and additional information. 10. A request fora recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment„Vail Town Code, for amendments to Section 12-7H-5, Conditional Uses; Generally (On all Levels of a Building or Outside of a Building), to allow for seasonal use or structures as a conditional use in Lionshead Mixed Use I District; Section 12-7H-18, Mitigation of Development Impacts, to clarify the inclusion of employee housing as a mitigation of development impacts; Section 12-8A-3, Conditional Uses, to allow for ski runs as a conditional use of the Agricultural and Open Space District; Section 12-8C-3, Conditional Uses, to allow for ski lifts not including loading and unloading areas as a conditional use of the Natural Area Preservation District; Subsection 12-18-5B, Density Control, to clarify limitations on structures which do not conform to density controls; Chapter 14-3, Residential Access, Driveway and Parking Standards, to clarify standards for access, driveway and parking for commercial properties; and Chapter 14-6, Grading Standards, to clarify requirements for retaining walls, Vail Town Code, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0026) Applicant: Town of Vail • Planner: Rachel Friede ACTION: Tabled to June 12, 2006 MOTION: Rollie Kjesbo SECOND: Bill Jewitt VOTE: 6-0-0 Page 9 Rachel Friede made a presentation per the staff memorandum. This item was a worksession. . Tom Talbot, the Town of Vail Wildfire Specialist and Bill Carlson, the Environmental Officer, were present to answer any questions. The Commission expressed an interest in creating concrete requirements for a Wildfire Specialist. They were also concerned about creating a cottage industry. Tom Talbot said that there are some credentials we could require of the specialist such as those from the National Wildfire Coordination Group. Also, the Eagle County Wildfire Coordinate, Erik Lundgren, may be able to do inspections for free. The Commission expressed concern over Wildfire Regulations that would require clear cutting trees. Tom Talbot said that the goal is not to require trees cut down, but to protect the neighborhood. Dick Cleveland was concerned about legislation that is open to interpretation. Tom Talbot said that there may be ways to enforce legislation and get the right results through lot-by-lot analysis. Doug Cahill wants regulations that inform property owners of the mitigation that will be required before they begin the process, as to not burden them. Staff informed them that the requirements will be triggered by new development, residential additions over 500 square feet, commercial additions over 1000 square feet or an increase in dwelling units, accommodation units or fractional fee units. Tom Talbot said that the VFES has offered assessments for free to homeowners in Vail. As a result, there have been some successful mitigation projects. The Commission asked about the creation of the Wildfire Hazard Map. Tom Talbot said that the • changes in scope, fuel materials, etc., change the spread of fire and thus are reflected in the hazard designation.. The data used to create the map is a combination of data from Eagle County and alot-by-lot assessment done by Tom Talbot. Anne Gunion asked the burden placed on Staff to review plans. Rachel Friede said that the burden of review will be placed on the planning team, as to not burden the building team any more. The Commission agreed that there needs to be an education of the Commission and the public. During public comment, Jim Lamont of the Vail Village Homeowners Association said that the current system is set up for more landscaping and keeping the trees. The public wants standards and criteria, otherwise, we are not talking to the right body for this regulatory process. There needs to be correlation between design review requirements for landscaping and these regulations. Changing the culture for fire mitigation will be difficult until people understand clearly what they have to do. He said there may be covenant conflicts with design standards to allow for metal roofs. Anne Gunion said this could be approached like Chicago, where building requirements are paramount, and not the defensible space. Instead, perhaps the requirement should be to use fire protected materials and alternative materials. Also, with specialists, not all agree or are the same. • Page 10 Rollie Kjesbo tabled this item until the June 12, 2006, PEC meeting at the request of Staff. At the next meeting, Staff will provide a lesson in FireWise, and will go on site visits to evaluate the • Wildfire Hazard Rating of each lot. 11. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of an amendment to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, pursuant to Section 2.8, Adoption and Amendment of the Master Plan, Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, to amend the Lionshead Study Area Boundaries and Chapter 5, Detailed Plan Recommendations, to include the study "West Lionshead" area, generally located at 646, 862, 890, 923, 934, 953, 1000, and 1031 South Frontage Road West/Lot 54 and Tract K of Glen Lyon Subdivision, Tracts C and D, Vail Village Filing 2, and several unplatted parcels (a more complete legal description is available at the Community Development Department), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0008) Applicant: Vail Resorts Development Company, Town of Vail, and Glen Lyon Office Building General Partnership Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Tabled to May 22, 2006 MOTION: Rollie Kjesbo SECOND: Bill Jewitt VOTE: 6-0-0 12. A request fora recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment,.Vail Town Code, and Section 2.8, Adoption and Amendment of the Master Plan, Lionshead Redevelopment Master Pfan, to allow for amendments to Articles 12-7H, Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District, and 12-71, Lionshead Mixed Use 2 District, Vail Town Code, and the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, to require no net loss of parking, no net loss of employee housing units and no net loss of accommodation units in Lionshead Mixed Use 1 and Lionshead Mixed Use 2 Districts, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0028) Applicant: Town of Vail • Planner: George Ruther ACTION: Tabled to May 22, 2006 MOTION: Rollie Kjesbo SECOND: Bill Jewitt VOTE: 6-0-0 13. A request for a final review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7J-12, Major Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of the Timberline Lodge, located at 1783 North Frontage Road/Lots 9-12, Buffehr Creek Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC05-0080) Applicant: Timberline Roost Lodge, LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: George Ruther ACTION: Tabled to June 12, 2006 MOTION: Rollie Kjesbo SECOND: Bill Jewitt VOTE: 6-0-0 14. Approval of April 24, 2006 minutes MOTION: Rollie Kjesbo recused) SECOND: Dick Cleveland VOTE: 5-0-1 (Pierce 15. Information Update 16. Adjournment MOTION: Bill Jewitt SECOND: Rollie Kjesbo VOTE: 6-0-0 • Page 11 The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular • office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please calf (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24-hour notification. Please call (970) 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published May 5, 2006, in the Vail Daily. C] C Page 12 MEMORANDUM • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: May 8, 2006 SUBJECT: A request for a final review of a text amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendments, Vail Town Code, to allow for an amendment to Section 12-21-14, Restrictions in Specific Zones on Excessive Slopes, Vail Town Code, to increase the amount of allowable site coverage on lots with excessive slopes from 15% to 20%, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0020) Applicant: Helmut Reiss, represented by Isom & Associates Planner: Matt Gennett 1. SUMMARY The applicant, Helmut Reiss, is requesting to amend Section 12-21-14, Restrictions in Specific Zones on Excessive Slopes, Vail Town Code, which further restricts site coverage on lots with average slopes in excess of 30% within four of the nine residential zone districts established in Chapter 12-6, Residential Districts, Vail Town Code, to a maximum of 15% of the total site area, instead of the standard 20% maximum. The . rationale behind the applicant's request is to allow for greater flexibility in the design and construction of residences on steep hillsides (Attachment A). Based upon staff's review of the criteria in Section IV of this memorandum, and further analysis into site disturbance related to residential development (Attachment B}, the Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval with modifications to the Vail Town Council, subject to the findings noted in Section V of this memorandum. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Helmet Reiss, represented by Isom & Associates, is proposing a text amendment to Section 12-21-14.E.1, Restriction in Specific Zones on Excessive Slopes, Vail Town Code, to increase the allowable site coverage from 15% to 20% in the zone districts: Hillside Residential (HS), Single Family Residential (SFR), Two-Family Residential (R), and Two-Family Primary Secondary Residential (PIS), as specified by 12-21-14. E.1. The proposed text amendment is as follows: (deletions are shown in /additions are shown bold) 1. N~oi mare than fifteen Y°r~(15~~~-~{±h~ °~.tei-,~e~ r.=~al-be ~~; ir; a<,njunot;cr eti•ith o Ty~s I €!~-ple~rss •~,,#^^tiFF :,,.s„~;,~nrrg-~ knit ~ h-~prEr 13-e#~h;s Title-, ir. ~+~+s~i-case 1-IVl-Tt't~Q tl~..r: t~~ion+~i nornon+ /'?/l0/ \ ~~'.~ C ±v ..r .~ m..~i ho nn.iorer~ F,~.- +~g3; ar'd 1 ~1. Not more than ten percent (10%) of the total site area may be covered by driveways and surface parking. IV. BACKGROUND On April 24, 2006, the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) conducted a work session during which staff was directed to draft changes to their suggested modified version of the applicant's proposed text amendment. The minutes of the April 24, 2006, Planning and Environmental hearing are attached to this memorandum (Attachment C) and staff's suggested modification to the applicant's requested amendment is stated in Section V of this memorandum. CRITERIA The review criteria and factors for consideration for a request of a text amendment are established in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 12-3, Vail Town Code. 1. The extent to which the text amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations; and, Staff believes the proposed text amendment, as submitted, does not further the general and specific purposes of Title 12, Zoning Regulations. However, with the modifications to the applicant's requested amendment as proposed by staff in Section V of this memorandum, the general and specific purposes of Title 12 are furthered. According to Section 12-1-2, Purpose, Vail Town Code, the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations are as follows: • A. General: These regulations are enacted for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town, and to promote • the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that will conserve and enhance its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of high quality. B. Specific: These regulations are intended to achieve the following more specific purposes: 1. To provide for adequate light, air, sanitation, drainage, and public facilities. 2. To secure safety from fire, panic, flood, avalanche, accumulation of snow, and other dangerous conditions. 3. To promote safe and efficient pedestrian and vehicular traffic circulation and to lessen congestion in the streets. 4. To promote adequate and appropriately located off-street parking and loading facilities. 5. To conserve and maintain established community qualities and economic values. S. To encourage a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with Municipal development objectives. 7. To prevent excessive population densities and overcrowding of the land with structures. 8. To safeguard and enhance the appearance of the Town. 9. To conserve and protect wildlife, streams, woods, hillsides, and other desirable natural features. 10. To assure adequate open space, recreation opportunities, and other amenities and facilities conducive to desired living quarters. 11. To otherwise provide for the growth of an orderly and viable community. • 2 • Upon review of the stated purposes of the Zoning Regulations, staff believes that this proposed text amendment does not further these purposes. The prescribed text the applicant wishes to amend was specifically enacted to protect the natural topography of the steep slopes in question; to protect the inherent aesthetic and economic value of the undisturbed terrain threatened by this proposed text amendment; and to protect the public health, safety, and welfare; as clearly tracked and outlined in Section III of this memorandum. However, staff does believe the modified version of the existing language, as listed in Section V of this memorandum, which addresses site disturbance specifically, rather than attempting to minimize site disturbance through the further restriction of maximum site coverage on steep slopes, will fulfill this criterion. 2. The extent to which the text amendment would better implement and better achieve the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town; and, Staff does not believe the text amendment request, as submitted, better implements or achieves the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan, nor is it entirely compatible with the development objectives of the Town. With the addition of staff's suggested language limiting site disturbance explicitly, • and language granting discretion to the Deaign Review Board (DRB) over the extent of land to be physically disturbed by excavation work related to construction of a structure, staff does believe this criterion will be met, especially in consideration of the following specific goals: 2. To secure safety from sire, panic, flood, avalanche, accumulation of snow, and other dangerous conditions; 5. To conserve and maintain established community qualities and economic values; 6. To encourage a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with Municipal development objectives; 8. To safeguard and enhance the appearance of the Town; and 9. To conserve and protect wildlife, streams, woods, hillsides, and other desirable natural features. 3. The extent to which the text amendment demonstrates how conditions have substantially changed since the adoption of the subject regulation and how the existing regulation is no longer appropriate or is inapplicable; and, Staff has found this text amendment proposal, as submitted, does not demonstrate how conditions have substantially changed since the adoption of the subject regulation, nor can staff find any evidence of the relevant topographic conditions having changed. The creation of the 15% site coverage restriction on • lots with an average slope greater than 30% was intended to result in "development that is more sensitive to the site with less site disturbance", as stated by the Town Council in Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1994. Since staff has determined the restriction of site coverage to 15% on steep slopes does nothing to limit actual site disturbance (Attachment B) a more appropriate text 3 amendment would be one which sets a limit on the extent a site is allowed to be • disturbed when the average slope exceeds 30%. 4. The extent to which the text amendment provides a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal development objectives; and, Staff has determined that the proposed text amendment does not provide a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations and is inconsistent with municipal development objectives. Again, the primary purpose of restricting the site coverage on steep slopes is to minimize site disturbance. The restriction does force owners and developers of steep lots to create a more vertical design, rather than one which is more horizontal, but it does not restrict the area of physical disturbance on a site by excavation work or retention systems for construction of a structure. If the intent of the subject regulation is to actually limit the amount of site disturbance created by constructing a home on a steep slope, than it should be amended to directly regulate site disturbance as a percentage of the lot size and in proportion to the steepness of the slope. 5. Such other factors and criteria the Commission and/or Council deems applicable to the proposed text amendment. Section 12-21-14E.1, Vail Town Code, is meant to substantially decrease site disturbance for these 640 lots by giving applicants the incentive to locate structures close to the street, thereby minimizing a cut across a steep lot for • access. However, based upon the evidence and data collected by staff (Attachment B), this regulation alone does not unilaterally further the Town's development objectives. The additional text outlined in Section V of this memorandum will work toward protecting the values of the Town of Vail, and meeting its development objectives. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval with modifications of the proposed text amendment to the Vail Town Council. Staff's recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria found in Section IV of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented. Staff's suggested modification to the applicant's text amendment proposal entails the following additional (bold) text: 2. In order to protect the natural land form and vegetation on steep slopes, not more than sixty percent (60%) of the total site area may be disturbed from present conditions by construction activities. The Design Review Board (DRB) may approve site disturbance in excess of the sixty percent (60%) maximum if specific design criteria warrant the extent of the requested deviation. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a • recommendation of approval with conditions to the Vail Town Council of this proposed text amendment, as modified above by staff the Department of Community Development recommends the Commission pass the following motion: 4 • "Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section IV of this memorandum, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds: That the amendment, as modified by staff, is consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town; and 2. That the modified amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations; and 3. That the modified amendment promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town, and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. VI. ATTACHMENTS A. Applicant's Request B. Staff Analysis C. Excerpted minutes from the April 24, 2006, Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) Hearing • • 5 Attachment: A ISOM & ASSOCIATES ~ ~ Architecture Land Planning Project Management March 14, 2006 Town of Vail Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Re: Petition for an Amendment to the Municipal Code Dear Planning Staff: The following is a Petition for an Amendment to the Town of Vail Municipal Code. Specifically the request is to modify Section 12-21-14: Restrictions in Specific Zones on Excessive Slopes, Section E, Site coverage, is restricted to " 1. Not more than fifteen percent (15%) of the site area maybe covered by building...." "Where the average slope of the site beneath the existing or proposed structure and pazking azea is in access of thirty percent (30%)." It is requested that the fifteen percent (15%) site coverage be amended to twenty percent (20%). • The reason for the request is to allow for greater flexibility in the design and construction of residences on steep hill sides. With a fifteen percent (15%) site coverage regulation there is little room for design and construction of units once the gazages have been included in the site coverage. The regulation forces people to build very close to the street and then build vertically either up or down to accommodate their dwelling unit in the fifteen percent (15%) site coverage. This forces designs to be very vertical on exposed steep sites. Amore horizontal design with a twenty percent (20%) site coverage would be less intrusive visually and more harmonious with the hill side. Sites of greater than 30% should step with the hillside which avoids excessive cuts and fills and also the cantilevered or post and beam decks. With the change in GRFA Regulations, the twenty percent (20%) would also allow homeowners to build additional square footage adjacent to their residences without going vertical which causes more of a visual impact. T11e advantages of this regulation adjustment are many fold as follows: 1. A change from 15% to 20% site coverage for new construction allows for a much better design of the residential units that would be more compatible with the site by being able to step either down or up the sites and therefore not be a "slab" type construction were everyone is building directly above or below their garage structures on their sites. This is a real plus for the visual impacts of building on steeper slopes and causes less disturbance to the site by being • able to accommodate steeper grades with structures rather than just retaining walls. P.O. Box 9 Eagle, Colorado 81631 (970) 328-2388 FAX (970) 328-6266 • 2. The changing from 15% to 20% would allow for somewhere around 1500 sites in Vail to be expanded without going through variances which are very difficult to do. Most people in Vail need an additional room whether it is for a dining room, additional bedroom for a new infant, new bathroom, addition to a house, or just a sunroom or deck to be constructed as use by right in the valley. This would allow people to expand buildings that presently cover 15% without tearing down their unit or having to take the roof off to go up higher. This change in the regulations makes a lot of sense for the existing home owners in Vail whether in East Vail, the Vail core or in West Vail. 3. The ability of approximately 1500 units to expand would be a great economic boon for Vail by encouraging the expansion of existing units rather than tear downs and would create a new vitality for construction in the valley. 4. The adoption of a new regulation to go from 15% to 20% would also encourage purchasing existing houses that are now 30 to 40 years old and either remodeling or tearing them down to replace the structure. Some of the . older houses are of poor quality construction and would benefit from this regulation. There is no down side to approving the regulation change ~.,.u 15 to 20% site coverage on steeper slopes. There is only an economic benefit to the Town and revitalization of older neighborhoods. A brief history of the project is as follows: 1. Met with staff in December, 2004, who recommended a Variance to add 100 square feet onto an existing residence at 2672 Cortina Lane in West Vail. 2. February, 2005, Variance turned down by the Planning Commission. They did not want to set a precedent. Recommended an amendment to the zoning to allow for 20% site coverage. 3. April 11, 2005, the Planning Commission recommended unanimously to amend zoning regulations to allow for 20% site coverage on sites greater than 30% slope. 4. June 7, 2005, Town of Vail denied the request. • The change in text is for "locals" to solve problems on their residences by allowing for small additions on their houses and better site compatibility. The Town of Vail recently gave a bonus in square footage to residential properties in Ordinance No. 14-2004, but did not allow for the use of this Ordinance by increasing lot coverage on hillside lots. • An analysis by the Staff and the applicant showed that the 15% site coverage actually caused more site disturbance than 20% coverage. The reason is it takes more of the sites surface azeas to get back to grade than using additional building coverage to absorb the grade change. A structure can have a 10 foot grade change, retaining walls can only be 3 or 4 feet and terraced. Attached are photos along Vail Ridge Subdivision showing the problem. Also attached is the application and a filing fee of $1300.00 If there are any questions concerning this application, please contact this office. Sincerely yours, ~- /,1 %~ Stephe som Cc: Helmet Reiss K423TownofV ai1031006 • • Attachment: B Analysis of the Potential Correlations between Site Coveraae and Site Disturbance • April 24, 2006 Address Lot Size Maximum Allowable Actual Site Disturbed Site Coverage Coverage Area Difference 1290 Westhaven Circle 30,872 15% 12.40% 37.5% 25.1% 815 Potato Patch 26,223 15% 13% 66% 53% 1724 Geneva Drive 18,185 15% 8.7% 34.9% 26.2% 796 West Forest Road 46,642 15% 8.6% 25.5% 16.9% 1397 Vail Valley Drive 25,739 15% 14.6% 91.5% 76.9% 1479 Aspen Grove Lane 20,647 15% 11.9% 62.2% 50.3% 2735 Snowberry 52,982 15% 6.7% 26.5% 19.8% 1310 Greenhill Court 23,731 15% 10.5% 38% 27.5% 1390 Greenhill Court 33,611 15% 12.4% 37% 24.6% 166 Forest Road 21, 386 15% 10.6% 41.2% 30.6% 1701 E Buffehr Creek Road 28,357 20% 10.8% 39.9% 29.1 3828 Bridge Road 12,980 20% 14.9% 60% 45.1 4916 Juniper Lane 22,568 20% 18.8% 68.1 % 49.3% 245 East Forest Road 20,820 20% 19.6% 76.2% 56.6% 34 Beaver Dam Road 20,909 20% 14.9% 59% 44.1 197 Rockledge Road 26,190 20% 18.7% 67% 48.3% 100 Vail Road 23,086 20% 17% 56% 39% 778 Potato Patch 20,821 20% 19.7% 78.5% 58,8% 758 Potato Patch 17,798 20% 17.3% 58.3% 41 % 395 Mill Creek Circle 18,917 20% 19.4% 90.7% 71.3% 1187 Vail Valley Drive 12,824 20% 13% 84.6% 71.6% • AVERAGES 25,014 N/A 13.9% 57.0% 43.1% The table shown above gives examples of actual lots in one of the four subject zone districts (SFR, HR, R, and PS), the allowable and actual site coverage as percentages of the lot size, the disturbed area as a percentage of the lot size, and the difference between the actual site coverage percentage and the disturbed area percentage. The disturbed area percentages were derived from digitizing the "limit of disturbance" fencing depicted on each approved site plan and expressing the square footage of that area as a percentage of the total square footage of the lot size. As evidenced in the data, the average disturbed area for lots with and without average slopes underneath the building footprint in excess of thirty percent (30%) is fifty-seven percent (57%) of the lot size on an averaged size lot of 25,014 square feet. Given the fact there is not a significant difference between site disturbance percentages among lots restricted to fifteen percent (15%) site coverage and those restricted to twenty percent (20%) site coverage, it is apparent the subject regulation does not achieve its goal of limiting site disturbance through further restricting site coverage down to fifteen percent (15%) on what are defined as steep slopes. Therefore, as a result of this analysis, staff has proposed to introduce new language to the Hazard Regulations which will limit the amount a site with slopes in excess of thirty percent (30%) may be disturbed to an area not to exceed sixty percent (60%) of the lot size. The average site disturbance, as depicted in the table above, is fifty-seven percent (57%) in this • study, and staff has rounded that number up to sixty percent (60%) for the sake of clarity. Attachment C Excerpted from the April 24. 2006 Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) hearing. • 5. A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a text amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendments, Vail Town Code, to allow for an amendment to Section 12-21-14, Restrictions in Specific Zones on Excessive Slopes, Vail Town Code, to increase the amount of allowable site coverage on lots with excessive slopes from 15% to 20%, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0020) Applicant: Helmut Reiss, represented by Isom & Associates Planner: Matt Gennett /Bill Gibson ACTION: Tabled to May 8, 2006 MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Jewitt VOTE: 7-0-0 Bill Gibson presented the project according to the memorandum. Steve Isom, the applicant, commented that the request before the Commission today had begun as a simple site coverage variance request initiated by an addition to a home in West Vail of -100 square feet. The applicant had been urged by the Planning Commission to pursue the route of a text amendment instead. Much discussion had occurred over the years regarding the limitation of site disturbance vs. the regulation of site coverage. Steve furthered that residences built upon steep slopes have always been limited by site coverage and thence were unable to take advantage even of the 250 addition that used to be in place for single/two- family residential sites. He recommended that the phrase "new" be placed in the development phrase recommended by Staff. Dick Cleveland commented that this was a request that is related only to a couple of sites and should not be evaluated as a text amendment for different zone districts, generally. He thought that the current regulations were effective. Bill Jewitt commented that he was in favor last time and will likely be in favor of the request again. He saw this • as a regulation relating to hazards. He agreed with Steve's comment that the DRB was the Board that should regulate site disturbance. However, he felt that a calculable guideline (in terms of a percentage) should be instituted to guide disturbance amounts. Rollie Kjesbo also stated his continued support of the request. He said that the 60% was a good idea. If that was a number that needed to be exceeded, it could be, privy to Design Review Board review and approval. A variance should not be needed for that type of request above 60%. . Bill Pierce agreed with the other Commissioners. Anne Gunion felt that the allowable site coverage should be at least 20%. She was opposed to restricting site disturbance. She did agree to protecting natural and environmental features, which should be viewed on a lot- to-lot basis. She would prefer that disturbance be treated on a site-to-site basis. Chas Bernhardt felt that this guideline could not be applied overall, but needed to be dealt with on a site-to-site basis. Doug Cahill agreed that since disturbance was the intent of bringing the site coverage down to 15%, it should be regulated now. He felt that the natural forms of the site should be maintained as well. He preferred to not regulate disturbance but to let the site coverage rise to 20%. Bill Jewitt commented that the DRB should be required to approve a site disturbance plan. He suggested it be stated that the Town has reasonably felt that 60% was a studied number (guideline). Anne Gunion suggested that the intent of the regulation be placed in the text to be used by the Design Review Board. Bill Gibson clarified that for the next Commission meeting, Staff would draft text amendment language that • included an intent statement, a 60% site disturbance guideline, and Design Review Board authority to approve site coverage in excess of the guideline. MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: May 8, 2006 SUBJECT: A request for a final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-6D-3, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, to allow for a public utility and public service use (water tank), located at 2734 Snowberry Drive/Lot 14, Block 9, Vail Intermountain, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0031) Applicant: Eagle River Water and Sanitation District Planner: Elisabeth Eckel Reed SUMMARY The applicant, Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, is requesting a conditional use permit as outlined in Section 12-6D-3, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, to allow for a public utility and public service use (water tank), located at 2734 Snowberry Drive/Lot 14, Block 9, Vail Intermountain. The conditional use permit is requested to allow the applicant to replace an existing above ground water tank with a new above ground water • tank upon the same lot. Based upon Staff's review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends approval, with conditions of this request subject to the findings and conditions noted in Section VIII of this memorandum. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The Eagle River Water and Sanitation District is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for the replacement of an above ground 350,000 gallon steel water tank with a new 1.5 million gallon reinforced concrete water tank at the same site. The Water District received Planning and Environmental Commission approval for a conditional use permit requesting the installation of a buried water tank of the same size on March 14, 2005. The Water District currently uses the tank at the Snowberry site for support during low flow times of the year and for year round fire flow protection from the center of Town to the West Vail area. The existing tank is partially located on Lot 15, the neighboring lot to the west and overlaps that lot line by approximately five feet. The existing tank and supporting retaining wall will be removed and the affected areas will be re-graded and reseeded to their natural state. The attached vicinity map and pictures are helpful in clarifying the secluded nature of the site (Attachments A and B). The proposal for the installation of a below grade tank has been revised to install an above ground water tank due to the District's inability to receive viable bids for the shoring and stabilization techniques which would have been necessary to support the below grade tank proposed and approved last March. • The new tank is proposed for an area of the site located approximately seventy-five feet (75') north of the existing tank. The new tank will have an above-ground height of approximately twenty-two feet (22') and a diameter of one hundred eight feet (108') It will be constructed of reinforced concrete and will be supported by the installation of below grade stone support columns. The stone support columns will be three feet (3') wide and will be installed using 3/<<" washed rock that will be bored at seven foot (7') intervals to support the new tank. The overall height of the tank will not be greater than that of the tank which exists on site today. The access road that exists on the site will be used during construction. During times of non-construction, the tank will also be accessed regularly; by vehicle during the summer and on foot or via snowmobile during the winter. The lot is moderately steep with ~'25% grades sloping to the northwest, where the existing access road enters the site. The applicant is proposing the removal of thirty eight (38) trees during the construction process. Of the trees proposed for removal, eleven (11) trees are already diseased or deceased. The applicant is proposing to reseed all disturbed areas with a dryland seed mix. The applicant's proposal was reviewed conceptually by the Design Review Board at its May 3, 2006. The Design Review Board, together with the applicant, proposed that the access bench that is to be graded around the proposed tank be widened to provide room for the installation of vegetation. The applicant is proposing to place between fifteen and twenty (15 - 20) twenty foot (20') coniferous trees in said area. Additionally, the applicant has proposed to plant a number of saplings of various heights to the north of the tank. Due to the extensive amount of time required to install the new tank, the applicant is not planning to finish the installation of the tank until the summer of 2007, directly after which time the plantings will occur. III. BACKGROUND The 13.24 acre site was purchased by the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District in • 2001. Over the years, the site has been proposed to house various uses, including subdivided lots containing clustered housing developments, an idea which was discussed in the early 1980's and not supported by Staff due to the difficulty in obtaining access to the units as a result of the steep slopes on the lot. Most recently, employee housing was discussed as an option for the site. Again, the costs associated with accessibility proved to be the biggest deterrent to that plan. The applicant was granted approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning and Environmental Commission on March 14, 2005 in order to construct abelow-grade water tank on the site to replace the above grade water tank that currently exists. Because the applicant was not able to receive viable construction bids for the stabilization that would be needed to make the new below-grade tank a reality, the project was placed on hold and reassessed as a proposal for an above ground water tank. IV. REVIEWING BOARD ROLES Order of Review: Generally, conditional use permit applications will be reviewed by the Planning and Environmental Commission, and then any accompanying design review application will be reviewed by the Design Review Board. Plannina and Environmental Commission: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for final approval, approval with modifications, or denial of a conditional use permit application, in accordance with Chapter 12-16, Conditional Use Permits, Vail Town Code. Desian Review Board: 2 The Design Review Board has no review authority over a conditional use permit application. However, the Design Review Board is responsible for the final approval, • approval with modifications, or denial of any accompanying design review application. Town Council: The Town Council has the authority to hear and decide appeals from any decision, determination, or interpretation _by the Planning and Environmental Commission and/or Design Review Board. The Town Council may also call up a decision of the Planning and Environmental Commission and/or Design Review Board. Staff: The Town Staff facilitates the application review process. Staff reviews the submitted application materials for completeness and general compliance with the appropriate requirements of the Town Code. Staff also provides the Planning and Environmental Commission a memorandum containing a description and background of the application; an evaluation of the application in regard to the criteria and findings outlined by the Town Code; and a recommendation of approval, approval with modifications, or denial. V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS A. Town of Vail Zoning Regulations For the Planning and Environmental Commission's reference, Section 12-16-1, Vail Town Code, identifies the purpose for a conditional use permit as follows: "In order to provide the flexibility necessary to achieve the objectives of this title, • specified uses are permitted in certain districts subject to the granting of a conditional use permit. Because of their unusual or special characteristics, conditional uses require review so that they maybe located properly with respect to the purposes of this title and with respect to their effects on surrounding properties. The review process prescribed in this chapter is intended to assure compatibility and harmonious development between conditional uses and surrounding properties in the Town at large. Uses listed as conditional uses in the various districts may be permitted subject to such conditions and limitations as the Town may prescribe to insure that the location and operation of the conditional uses will be in accordance with the development objectives of the Town and will not be detrimental to other uses or properties. Where conditions cannot be devised, to achieve these objectives, applications for conditional use permits shall be denied. " The site proposed for a new water tank is located within the Primary/Secondary zone district, which purpose is listed in Section 12-6D-1: "The two-family primary/secondary residential district is intended to provide sites for single-family residential uses or two-family residential uses in which one unit is a larger primary residence and the second unit is a smaller caretaker apartment, together with such public facilities as may appropriately be located in the same district. The two-family primary/secondary residential district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling, commensurate with single-family and two-family occupancy, and to maintain the desirable residential qualifies of such sites by establishing • appropriate site development standards. " Furthermore, the following Conditional Uses are allowed within the Primary/Secondary zone district, as listed in Section 12-6D-3: 3 Bed and breakfast as further regulated by section 12-14-18 of this title. Funiculars, and other similar conveyances. Home child daycare facility as further regulated by section 12-14-12 of this title. Public buildings, grounds and facilities. Public or private schools. Public park and recreation facilities. Public utility and public service uses. Ski lifts and tows. Type 11 employee housing unit as set forth in chapter 13 of this title. VI VII. ZONING ANALYSIS Legal Description: 2734 Snowberry Drive/ Lot 14, Block 9, Vail Intermountain Subdivision Zoning: Two Family Primary/Secondary Residential Land Use Plan Designation: Residential Current Land Use: Public utility and public service use Development Standard Lot Area: Allowed/Required 576,734 sq. ft. (13.24 acres) Existina no change Proposed • • Setbacks: Front: Sides: Rear: Height: GRFA: Site Coverage: Density: Landscape Area: Parking: 20 ft. 15 ft. 15 ft. 33 ft. N/A 15% (86,510 sq. ft.) 2 dwelling unit 60% (346,040 sq. ft.) 0 spaces SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Land Use North: Residential South: Open Space East: Open Space West: Residential no change 190 ft. 120 ft. <5 ft. ~65 ft. 130 ft. -85 ft. 15 ft. 22 ft. N/A N/A 0.3% (-'1,962 sq. ft.) 1.1% (6,644 sq. ft.) 0 dwelling units 0 dwelling units 99.7% (574,772 Sq ft) 98.9% (570,090 Sq ft) 0 spaces 0 spaces Zonino. Two Family Primary/Secondary United States Forest Service United States Forest Service Two Family Primary/Secondary VIII. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS The review criteria for a request of this nature are established by the Town Code. The • proposed water tank is located within the Two Family Primary/Secondary Zone District. Therefore, this proposal is subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 12-16, Vail Town Code. 4 A. Consideration of Factors Reaardina Conditional Use Permits: • 1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the Town. Staff believes the proposed water tank is consistent with the purpose of the Two Family Primary/Secondary zone district, which purpose includes "such public facilities as may appropriately be located in the same district". The tank provides additional water storage for the District to provide to the Town of Vail and will result in minimal impact to the residential uses to the north and west 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. Staff believes the proposed structure will have negligible effects on the above-mentioned criteria. Because of the manner in which the new tank is to be operated, staff believes that there is no effect on the use of light and air. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. Staff believes that the proposed structure will have negligible effects on the • above-mentioned criteria. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. The scale and bulk of the proposed water tank will not result in a negative effect upon the character of the area due to its position on a hill far to the southeast of Snowberry Drive. Because trees are proposed for removal, both Staff and the Design Review Board believe the addition of landscaping will help mitigate any potential negative visual impacts resulting from the access road to the tank. The positioning of the tank on this secluded site will "assure compatibility and harmonious development between (it) and surrounding properties in the Town at large': B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a conditional use permit: That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the Lionshead Mixed Use-1 Zone District. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it will be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, • safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 5 3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. • IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission approves, with conditions, the applicant's request for a final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-6D-3, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, to allow for a public utility and public service use (water tank), located at 2734 Snowberry Drive/Lot 14, Block 9, Vail Intermountain Subdivision. Staff's recommendation of approval is based upon the review of the criteria described in Section VII of this memo and the evidence and testimony presented. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the applicant's request, staff recommends that the following findings be made as part of a motion: 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. • Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this request, staff recommends the following conditions of approval: Prior to receipt of a grading permit from the Town of Vail Public Works Department, a letter from the property owner of Lot 15, Block 9, Vail Intermountain Subdivision, shall be submitted to and accepted by the Town of Vail Community Development Department that grants the applicant permission to re-grade and re-seed the areas of Lot 15 that will be disturbed as a result of the removal of the existing water tank. 2. Prior to construction, a copy of the de-watering permit shall be submitted to the Town of Vail Public Works Department. 3. Prior to construction, a staging plan and Public Way permit shall be submitted to the Town of Vail Public Works Department. 4. Prior to November 1, 2007, the applicant shall plant between fifteen and twenty (15 - 20) twenty foot (20') trees on or near the access bench to the tank and an appropriate number of other saplings on the site to screen the tank. 5. This approval shall be contingent upon the applicant receiving Town of Vail approval of the design review application and required landscape plan associated with this conditional use permit request. • X. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map 6 B. Pictures of the Site • C. Site plan and tank structure D. Summary from applicant C Attachment A- CO ~ ~ 3 ~ H NM Ari N\ W 0 ~L ~ C 0 G .N C cn O ~Q 0 3~~ o~~ __~ ~~Q C ~ O M Q1 ~> N '~ w v o -o m ~ c~ ~ ~ *' 'c o ~ J ~ o€ ~~~ ~t E o g' i 7 I ~ 3 ~g ~g m= ~> >"~ $~ 3 E r • 0 0 N I I r 0 0 0 0 •i ® zl ~ ,e' ~~ t:, ,_~_E'. <.: .., • • ~a ~~ ., ~ i s1 '1 ~ 1 ...oeo;a:aL~'a~~rs~t4~w.a~ ,~ynion~na~i NVId `JNIOtl21~J A~taCfllll@1'lt C :,~VI VIy33NI~N3 ~'. soot avw, II 00 rIIVA lulu ~ ~ ~; P, I ~Nt+l 39VLIOIS 2l31VM NIld1Nf10W2131N1 JW 5'l -- ~ - '., .- ~,~M,e~ _ ~ - ~ I .M~ N ~NId1 lORiLSl4 N011ldlINVS + M31VM 213nR! 31JV3 ~_-_~ F~~ ,ae;e n ~~ aoaz,r-zrco =-J sous as uro I o I~ tarns o • '\-~.. ~.--_-- __ _ok - mow` ~ .(t3:._ -- 1 a +- t - ~ _ _ ~ -- ~ ~ I ~, } ~, ., _ ,~ _ 4 ~ ~ ~ 43._ Q _,4 ~~~ `~~ .421 __ ._ F,~ y~ ~ t. "1 4! ~ .. _. .9E __ \ ~ .. \ '. \ ~jG, \ Fit ~4 R?j ~_ _ ..- g, ~ ~ `\\ ,r\\ `I \ \ \ f ~~ I i ~ i i ~ `, 4 ~ . gg \ it g ~ I~ i 11 .d~~ M~~.~ ~ 8 B ~ ~ _ ~~_., \~- \ s \ ` ~ ,\ \. ~,,. ~ I ~ I ~ ~ ~ ?C ~vv , ~~ I vv ,~~ r, y \ y ! ~ v ~ F v - t ~ lx ' v ' ~ ~~vv ' ~ v v ~ ~ v \' ~ ~ ` ~ t '~~ III` ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~' ' ~ I~ I °~Ar I r ~ ~ ~ - U~ ' ~~A,. ~. ~v ' ~ a. ~;~ z~~z~ I ' ~:~ ~ v ~ ~ v~ .orgy ~v# _ ~. \ ~~~ ~W-+ ~ •\"Tr'~1 1 ~\ / IL F ~ ~ ~ `~ ~ ~ ° ~~' ~ I -~ ~ ~., ~ ova i ~~ ~1 ~ ~Y S a `\ ~~~ t\\ :\ \ \ 1~ EC-. ,~ S$ QE F E3 8 ~"pg~ -K£L+~~' I \ . • ^ ~. / 3 4 . ~ 6 ~ ~~ fi~ b II ~ Ij~ ~° 3 sEa ~ \\ ;e \\ ~ I~ ~~ 3R LS 0 'R ~ F4~. I~ "~cb~ i ~~ \\~~ ~ /i `~. .~ d 11`,x', \ ~' . ~ ar y,. ~ 5~ }~ $y4i 'I ~~ !~ ~~~ / ^ 3 • g s .b ~ ~. ~NI NIA i3NI~N7 -- e ~w IrJ'it~ U • c I N ~G `YI N C{ ii, IS ~' ~IIU -( .`^ILr N YI 1- K W r_r 7 k 6 Q 5 ~<il •li [L - `d' W v `' ~ Ul'i a J >I` L1 O F ~~ H ~ y S • 4 9 ~~ ~~ I [g t~ r;E ~gg ~~B ~~. 9b~ _` -~-~- -- T x sNOUO3s ssoao -- ; - -.,, a,., ~,.,~:, w ~ o~ •-Iltln - _ N tlM NIV1N(1OW2131N1 `JW S' l ___ ~ ~ „~. o z -~. _ ~ -~ ~ a ,~:~ T~_a. a i NNtll 39tl2101S a31 Ib 31Jd3 - K°''", '~ - l~1a1514 NOlltl11N`dS + a31tlM a3n r z ~, a' , • ~ ul i Z ~: NI ~~~ ~~~~ ll~° QI I ~' W ~ ~~ ~ Icy O , i pI Z~ E g ~~ 8 rn ? CI E ~~8 S f. a~ e Ag x i z ~e'• b ~N , ` ..,o ~, ~~~ , ; ~ L4d',. ~ , n g. > i i ~ s~ s a o 1 ~ J 1 - ' _1 ~i ~ w]b ~ O ~ Q} L ~ zsW < ~ ~ ~ y^ IIN , SQ V ~' N LLa ~ ~ g E 1 - "' ! -~ J J k~ua h~ ~1 Y Z U z A ~ i c ~ $ ~~~ r< 1 ~ ~ Y y _ i U U t. ~ r ~ ~ W Y = C Q L ~ ~ 1 I ~ia S ,~ i ~~~ ~ ak ~ ' ~I ~ a.. ~~~~o ~ ^Ll u~a: - oo o ~. „" ~ __ i .m~~ ~ b s t G~8 ~` a8 01° L' 3 • °s ;,~.o:e:.~r~~~~oe:.~ 3~Idoad\NV~d unun _ a~~. <,,~~ ,.. lNl JNIy~~N~~JN3 00 'lIV/~ - ~____ '~ ~;,„ ~`" w~ ~" NNVl 30Va01S a31VM NI`d1NnOWa31Nl JW 5'l ~._ "~ °J""~° ~`'°o .,.a ~~ta~ ~ ~ ~ ..'~ 1012LLSI0 NOLLdlINVS + a31VM a3Ala 319V3 ~ f -- ,°L11'a~ """d` ^° ~°"'<` `~ - $F.'~.6 3 31:1 i CV "~Af (13`g5» i. qq ~ ' Y o f 77~ q - t3 R~ Q g: r § B~ V ~ ~ 2 3 € t ggg sgy3 6 n ~ 6i 7F d 3 f 377 :4r, F 'gs s`. I~ P~ ~~~~~~9d~,~H E ~k6~Ea~~ s !; ~g ~' e U ^Q >~71 s i~ x` ~ ~ RR ~a i ~ I I S a o l C'F •NB'3C~(~O i s Y s@~e` LL H 0 Z _ - pY _.__.. .. ... ..._~ ~ .. ~y. ... _ . ~ ,._. _ ._ ~ Y~ .. ~~ ~ ti~ 8~ B^ \ \\~~ , ~~~ yam I,\ , \ ~. I ~ ~ ~gC~ ~ \~ ~ \ ice. ~. ~6tiL-'iIY-J. 1~~ n C - ~~ s ' ~i;~ i g I' Ii ~ 1\ ` RR ~~ I\ ..~ ~. _~ C ~1 \ V~ g ~~ ~ ~ ~Y qp e k F5~99 N \1 ~ ~ ~ \ e;n 9th ~ ~ \y . f /._~ ri ~~$ ~ ., ¢ F~} c C - E~, o ~\ ~ ., j ` a ~ \ r~ L ~~~~ V\\ ASP E ~ \ G~- eL \ b/ \~ ~ ~e ~ Gcia era"~ ,p e s 5 ~' is '-' ~ v\\~, ~ ~ ~~ March 30, 2006 EAGLE RIVER 11VATER 8c SANITATION pia i rug, i 846 Forest Road • Vail, Colorado 81657 ~s7o~ a7s-7aao • FAx ~s7o) a7s~oas www.erwsd.org Mr. Joe Suther, Development Review Coordinator Town of Vail -Planning and Environmental Commission Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Subject: Intermountain Water Storage Tank -Conditional Use Permit Dear Mr. Suther: Attachment D p ~~~od~ MAR 3 0 1006 TOWN Or VAIL The Eagle River Water & Sanitation District (District) is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the replacement of an above-ground, 200,000 gallon, steel water storage tank with a new, 1.5 million gallon, above-ground, concrete water storage tank south of Snowberry Drive within the Intermountain subdivision. The District received approval from Staff on March 14, 2005 for the installation of a "buried" 1.5 million-gallon tank at the same site (PEC#050012). For your reference, we have included a copy of The Town of Vail PEC Staff Memorandum and Staff Action document relating to the original below-ground submittal. The District received no viable bids for the 2005 project and the shoring/stabilization required for a buried installation was cost prohibitive. The District instructed our engineering support to revise the tank design to feature an above-ground installation. The new tank location has moved approximately seventy-five feet (75') north and remains proposed for an area where no trees exist. The revised design requires some site preparation including clearing of topsoil, "overburdening" of the tank site with roughly 1,500 cy of fill material, benching of the tank site and north embankment, and the installation of below-grade support "columns." The new tank will have a height above ground of approximately twenty-two feet (22') with an outside diameter of one hundred and eight feet (108') and will be constructed of reinforced concrete. The overall height of the new tank will be at or slightly below the existing steel tank. The enclosed site photograph exhibits the comparative height and diameter of the existing and proposed tanks. Sincerely, ~~ry~~ ~ J ~~~ ~~ James B. Boyd, Jr. Construction Manager • • • WATER, WASTEWATER, OPERATIONS & MANAGEMENT SERVICES ~~3=;~„era... x,.35: a~l~oad\NV~a unun 9~~~ a; t~ 3~e~ )NRl33sNi`JN3 00 ~IIV~ ," °~~"~ DN eC` '~ 03~,~~~ w v~ W -~ -~~ ~ ~ HNYl 3JVa01S 2131tlM NId1Nf10W2131NI JW S'l .~a ,w,rao - ~ U . ~~ 1OR11510 NOLLVlIN~dS + 2131VM 2l3AIZI 31JV3 ~`v wi'lnans ~?eixnc no:. aooc: arco .,ti I 5f.~!Sl',3H ?it;i , 'CN ~"~' 03^YJ 5?0 d F g 0 ~ ~ °~ 3 ~ 3 $ 3 ; 6 ~: 3 ~~~ ~~~~6n$~~~ ~r ~:°pry ° a ~ as t F ~~~_6} "x e; ~ ~ q ~, E 3~ Y Q~ 111 l;~J ~ I ^~ ~ ~ I r~ei A ~ C K z xq IQNrI J ' j ~ ~~ c ~ ~ I :~U•~F°a € ~41L ~ ~ I I ~+ I ~~§~nis F Z ., ~ ~ - .. -~ .~ ~~ kty _ _ _ 8 .e .~i 4Y1 - - :~E1 Hs '' _'~ ~ -Ae r ~~~~. ~ Eat ~~ ~ i ~_ Z. e .':Ef ~ / 7 ~ ~ F ~ rc ~ 1 31w.f I i ' GGj ~T~ a ~ ~~ ~ ~1~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~. 11 fig. L'~ / ~~ g ~ ~ \ ~ y ~t,,9 9~',^F 6 1'\ ' / §~ zFd ~k~ ~ ~kV~~ r ~ ..~ ~ / YaSF ~ gm ~ .~ ~ k\ tis ~ ~ ,~ ~~ / ~"-~ ~ -ae:Pe- ay~ n~ ,\F ~ „afi \ \ ,~_I \ g i \ ~ w r I~i.+~~ 3 t,r~ a/ ia" J z~ '4'b sl " a t . , . a r, ~~~,~ >- '~~ '~~ ox ~B J ~ .a ,. - ~\` _3 ~~~a~ MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 8, 2006 SUBJECT: A request for final review of an appeal of an administrative action, pursuant to Section 12-3-3, Appeals, Vail Town Code, appealing a staff determination that an observatory is not an architectural feature allowed to extend above the building height limit, 1979 Sunburst DrivelLot 12, Vail Valley Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PRJ05-0417) Appellant: Gwathmey, Pratt, Shultz Architects Planner: Bill Gibson I. SUBJECT PROPERTY The subject property is 1979 Sunburst Drive/Lot 12, Vail Valley Filing 3. II. BACKGROUND • On April 10, 2006, the Planning and Environmental Commission members considered this appeal and were split 3-3 whether to uphold or overturn. the staff determination that an observatory is not an architectural feature allowed to extend above the building height limit, 1979 Sunburst Drive. Therefore, the Commission tabled this item for further review at its April 24, 2006, public hearing. Staff has researched other recently approved architectural projections and confirmed that the towers at the Arrabelle, Marriott, Ritz Carlton, and Landmark do not contain gross residential floor area. The applicant was unable to attend the April 24`h hearing and this item was table to May 8, 2006. III. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION JURISDICTION, Pursuant to Sub-section 12-3-3B-1, Appeal of Administrative Actions; Authority, Vail Town Code, the Planning and Environmental Commission has the authority to hear and decide appeals from any decision, determination or interpretation by any Town of Vail administrative official with respect to the provisions, standards, and procedures of the Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code. IV. PROCEDURAL CRITERIA FOR APPEALS, Pursuant to Sub-sections 12-3-3B-2 and 12-3-3B-3, Appeal of Administrative Actions; Initiation and Procedures, Vail Town Code, there are three basic criteria for an appeal: A) standing of the appellant; B) adequacy of the notice of appeal; and C) timeliness of the notice of appeal. • A) Standina of the Appellant As a representative of the property owners Samuel and Luleta Maslak, the appellant, Gwathmey, Pratt, Shultz Architects, has standing to appeal the administrative decision that an observatory is not an architectural feature allowed to extend above the building height limit at 1979 Sunburst Drive. B) Adeauacv of the Notice of the Appeal The application for this appeal was filed by a representative of the property owners Samuel and Luleta Maslak. The Appeals Form and the materials required for its submission have been determined to be complete by the Community Development Department. C) Timeliness of the Notice of Appeal Sub-section 12-3-3B-3, Procedures, Vail Town Code, states the following: "A written notice of appeal must be filed with the Administrator or with the department rendering the decision, determination or interpretation within twenty (20) calendar days of the decision becoming final. If the last day for filing an appeal falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or aTown-observed holiday, the last day for filing an appeal shall be extended to the next business day. The Administrator's decision shall become final at the next Planning and Environmental Commission meeting (or in the case of design related decision, the next Design Review Board meeting) following the Administrator's decision, unless the decision is called up and modified • by the Board or Commission. " The applicant submitted a complete appeal application within the twenty (20) day requirement. V. NATURE OF THE APPEAL On March 6, 2006, Gwathmey, Pratt, Schultz Architects, on behalf of Samuel and Luleta Maslak, filed an official appeals form to the Town of Vail Community Development Department. The appellant is appealing the administrative determination that an observatory proposed at 1979 Sunburst Drive/Lot 12, Vail Valley Filing 3 is not an architectural feature allowed to extend above the building height limit by the provisions of Sub-section 14-10-C6, Vail Town Code. The appellant's application and statement has been attached for reference (Attachment B). VI. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS OF THE TOWN CODE CHAPTER 12-3, ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT (IN PART) Section 12-3-3: Appeals 8. Appeal of Administrative Action • 2 • 1. Authority: The planning and environmental commission shall have the authority to hear and decide appeals from any decision, determination or interpretation by any town administrative official with respect to the provisions of this title and the standards and procedures hereinafter set forth, except that appeals of any decision, determination or interpretation by any town administrative official with regard to a design guideline shall be heard by the design review board. 2. Initiation: An appeal maybe initiated by an applicant, adjacent property owner, or any aggrieved or adversely affected person from any order, decision, determination or interpretation by any administrative official with respect to this title. "Aggrieved or adversely affected person" means any person who will suffer an adverse effect to an interest protected or furthered by this title. The alleged adverse interest may be shared in common with other members of the community at large, but shall exceed in degree the general interest in community good shared by all persons. The administrator shall determine the standing of an appellant. if the appellant objects to the administrator's determination of standing, the planning and environmental commission (or the design review board in the case of design guidelines) shall, at a meeting prior to hearing evidence on the appeal, make a determination as to the standing of the appellant. if the planning and environmental commission (or the design review board in the case of design guidelines) determines that the appellant does not have standing to bring an appeal, the appeal shall not • be heard and the original action or determination stands. 3. Procedures: A written notice of appeal must be filed with the administrator or with the department rendering the decision, determination or interpretation within twenty (20) calendar days of the decision becoming final. If the last day for filing an appeal falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or a town observed holiday, the last day for filing an appeal shall be extended to the next business day. The administrator's decision shall become final at the next planning and environmental commission meeting (or in the case of design related decision, the next design review board meeting) following the administrator's decision, unless the decision is called up and modified by the board or commission. Such notice shall be accompanied by the name and addresses (person's mailing and property's physical) of the appellant, applicant, property owner, and adjacent property owners (the list of property owners within a condominium project shall be satisfied by listing the addresses for the managing agent or the board of directors of the condominium association) as well as specific and articulate reasons for the appeal on forms provided by the town. The filing of such notice of appeal will require the administrative official whose decision is appealed, to forward to the planning and environmental commission (or the design review board in the case of design guidelines) at the next regularly scheduled meeting, a summary of all records concerning the subject matter of the appeal and to send written notice to the appellant, applicant, property owner, and • adjacent property owners (notification within a condominium project shall be satisfied by notifying the managing agent or the board of directors of the condominium association) at least fifteen (15) calendar days prior to 3 the hearing. A hearing shall be scheduled to be heard before the planning • and environmental commission (or the design review board in the case of design guidelines) on the appeal within thirty (30) calendar days of the appeal being filed. The planning and environmental commission (or the design review board in the case of design guidelines) may grant a continuance to allow the parties additional time to obtain information. The continuance shall be allowed for a period not to exceed an additional forty (40) calendar days. Failure to file such appeal shall constitute a waiver of any rights under this title to appeal any interpretation or determination made by an administrative official. 4. Effect Of Filing An Appeal: The filing of a notice of appeal shall stay all permit activity and any proceedings in furtherance of the action appealed unless the administrative official rendering such decision, determination or interpretation certifies in writing to the planning and environmental commission (or the design review board in the case of design guidelines). and the appellant that a stay poses an imminent peril to life or property, in which case the appeal shall not stay further permit activity and any proceedings. The commission (or board) shall review such certification and grant or deny a stay of the proceedings. Such determination shall be made at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the planning and environmental commission (or the design review board in the case of design guidelines). 5. Findings: The planning and environmental commission (or the design • review board in the case of design guidelines) shall on all appeals make specific findings of fact based directly on the particular evidence presented to it. These findings of fact must support conclusions that the standards and conditions imposed by the requirements of this title have or have not been met. 6. Fee: The town council may set a reasonable fee for filing an appeal of an administrative decision, determination or interpretation. The fee will be adopted in a fee schedule which shall be maintained in the department of community development. The fee shall be paid at the time the appeal is filed. CHAPTER 14-10, DESIGN REVIEW STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES (IN PART) C. Architectural Projections, Deck, Balconies, Steps, Bay Windows, etc: 6. Towers, spires, cupolas, chimneys, flagpoles, and similar architectural features not useable as habitable floor area may extend above the height limit a distance of not more than twenty five percent (25%) of the height limit nor more than fifteen feet (i5). SECTION 209, DEFINTIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS, H, 1997 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE (IN PART) • 4 • Habitable Space (Room) is space in a structure for living, sleeping, eating or cooking. Bathrooms, toilet compartments, closets, halls, storage or utility space, and similar areas, are not considered habitable space. SECTION R202, DEFINITIONS, 2003 INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE AND SECTION 202, DEFINITIONS, 2003 INTERNATION BUILDING CODE (IN PART) Habitable Space: A space in a building for living, sleeping, eating or cooking. Bathrooms, toilet rooms, closets, halls, storage or utility spaces and similar areas are not considered habitable spaces. VII. REQUIRED ACTION The Planning and Environmental Commission shall uphold, overturn, or modify the administrative determination that an observatory proposed at 1979 Sunburst Drive/Lot 12, Vail Valley Filing 3 is not an architectural feature allowed to extend above the building height limit by the provisions of Sub-section 14-10-C6, Vail Town Code. Sub- section 12-3-36-5, Findings, Vail Town Code, details the requirements for action by the Planning and Environmental Commission as follows: "The Planning and Environmental Commission (or the Design Review Board in the case of design guidelines) shall on all appeals make specific findings of fact based directly on the particular evidence presented to it. These findings of fact must support conclusions that the standards and conditions imposed by the • requirements of this Title have or have not been met " VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission upholds the administrative determination that an observatory proposed at 1979 Sunburst Drive/Lot 12, Vail Valley Filing 3 is not an architectural feature allowed to extend above the building height limit by the provisions of Sub-section 14-10-C6, Vail Town Code. Pursuant to Sub-section 12-3-3-B5, Vail Town Code, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall "on all appeals make specific findings of fact based directly on the particular evidence presented to it': In addition to any evidence presented at the public hearing, the Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission make the following findings of fact:: The subject property is zoned Two-Family Primary/Secondary Residential District. • The building height limit within the Two-Family Primary/Secondary Residential District is 33 feet for a sloping roof and 30 feet for a flat roof. • The proposed observatory has a sloping roof. Sub-section 14-10-C6, Vail Town Code, states that "towers, spires, cupolas, chimneys, flagpoles, and similar architectural features not useable as habitable floor area may extend above the height limit a distance of not more • than twenty five percent (25%) of the height limit nor more than fifteen feet (15)': 5 • The extension of an observatory above the building height limit is not • specifically contemplated by the provisions of Sub-section 14-10-C6, Vail Town Code. • The proposed observatory is of a similar architectural design to other residential entry and stairwell towers previously constructed within the Town of Vail. • Previously constructed residential stairwell towers within the Two-Family Primary/Secondary District have been allowed to extend above the height limit. Those portions of the stairwell tower previously approved to extend above the height limit were attic spaces deducted from the gross residential floor area calculations. Those stairwell tower portions extending above the height limit were constructed to be inaccessible from the interior of the building. • The proposed observatory is calculated as gross residential floor area (GRFA), pursuant to the provisions of Chapter i2-15, GRFA, Vail Town Code. • The provisions of Sub-section 14-10-C6, Vail Town Code, address architectural features not useable as "habitable floor area': The term "habitable floor area" is not defined by the Vail Town Code or the Town's adopted building codes (e.g. 20031RC and 2003 IBC). • The proposed observatory is not a "habitable space" as defined by the Town of Vail's previously and currently building codes (e.g. 1997 UBC and 2003 IRC/1BC); however, it is "habitable" in the terms of the common use of the term. • • The proposed observatory is accessible through a floor access panel and ladder that connects to an interior stairwell. • When in use, the proposed observatory's roof retracts and the observatory floor area is predominantly open and unenclosed. Pursuant to Sub-section 12-3-3-B5, Vail Town Code, should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to uphold the administrative determination that an observatory proposed at 1979 Sunburst Drive/Lot 12, Vail Valley Filing 3 is not an architectural feature allowed to extend above the building height limit by the provisions of Sub-section 14-10-C6, Vail Town Code, the Commission must determine that the findings of fact support the following finding: i. The Community Development Department Administrator's determination that an observatory proposed at 1979 Sunburst Drive/Lot 12, Vail Valley Filing 3 is not an architectural feature allowed to extend above the building height limit by the provisions of Sub-section 14-10-C6, Vail Town Code, has met the standards and conditions imposed by the requirements of Title 12, Zoning Regulations, and Title 14, Development Standards Handbook, Vail Town Code. IX. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Appellant's statement C. Proposed Architectural Plans • 6 ~d~ ~~o egg o= y A8~ d~$ o€ ~~8 s~~ Es Ea sq o~ ~iE ~ m E ; ~~ ga N_ U'> J O €r F~ 3 E r r 0 0 F C C Attachment B • Ned Gwathmey and Todd Kramer Gwathmey, Pratt, Schultz Architects, PC 1000 South Frontage Road West Vail, CO 81657 March 2, 2006 Town of Vail Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 RE: Maslak Residence - 1979 Sunburst Drive/Lot 12, Vail Valley Filing 3 1) Provide a detailed explanation of how you are an "aggrieved or adversely affected_ person." By limiting the height of our observation tower to 33`-0" above finished or natural grade, we are creating many difficulties. They are as follows: •A very difficult condition to construct and waterproof. By pushing the observatory down to the adjacent roofs we are creating bathtub like a condition that cannot have affective • waterproofing. •A condition that may affect the ability of the dome to rotate during the winter months. As snow accumulates in the "bathtub", along with the freeze thaw cycles common in the Vail Valley, the operation of the dome will be severely compromised. •Poor expression of an interesting architectural feature. The Vail Design Review Board Committee agree that the dome is unique and interesting and the majority of them (4 out of 5) support our interest in raising the dome, from an aesthetic point. 2) Specify the precise nature of the aQaeal. Please cite specific code sections having relevance to the action being aQOealed. In a letter from Bill Gibson dated 1-31-06 "...the proposed observatory is defined as Gross Residential Floor Area. Additionally, the proposed observatory does not qualify as `dowers, spires, chimneys, flagpoles, and a similar architectural feature not usable as habitable floor area" as described in Chapter 14-10, Design Review Standards and Guidelines, Vail Town Code. Therefore, the proposed observatory design must be revised to comply with the building height limit of 33 feef...prescribed by Section 12-6D-7, Height, Vail Town Code." Our response: We feel that the observatory is clearly a "tower" or "a similar architectural feature." The space • cannot be heated, as the temperature change when the shutter doors are open will affect the precision of the telescope. The space is also accessed by a steep ships ladder. Because it is unheated and has difficult access we do not feel that this should be categorized as Habitable space. • The Town of Vail defines Habitable in 12-2-2: "Any area designed for sleeping, living, cooking, dining, meeting or recreation [a detached space} as applied to floor area." Bill Gibson has voiced his concern that this space may be converted into a habitable space in the future. Because this space is unheated and has poor egress, to create a sleeping, living, cooking, dining or recreation space would be very difficult and a building permit will be required for any such conversion. Thus they will be required to specifically get permission for such a change, and the Town of Vail will be able to control any major renovations. In conclusion, because the dome is not heated, does not meet egress requirements, is not fully enclosed (when the shutter doors are opened), and is not clearly defined as habitable space, this space should not be considered by the Town of Vail as habitable space. By allowing the dome to be raised 3'-0" not only will the aesthetics be improved but the operation of the dome will be greatly enhanced. n U • 2 S^'~I '. 'r,e ~, ~ @~ " n} y 2 n n dH.3~ T N Qr.~ ~s bu R F '~ ~_` _ ~ nF ~o ~ ~~~ R~. ~ Attachment: C ~° ;'` ~ r `~ z•e.:e~ a ~~o~~Q ~ I I I I _ n e• is ~ ~~ n ,' , ' I • ~ \ ~. \ i - ,~ ~ ~ / 1 II~ ~\ ~ ,yy C. ~ ,.. i ~ ~ ~ ~ I I ~ I 1 `VI , 0 I_L. ,r ~ '~ ~~, ._ LU--~ I,a ~ ~ - ~'~ /i ~ - _ ,-,% ~ G'y\ ~, ~\ \~ .. ~~ ~` _ _ ._~ `, -- -, ., ,, ~ ~ ~' `~ -~, ' O ,, r- ~ - - ----- ffl ----r'-------; --r I rn 1i ~ I ' r ' ~ ~. ~'~ ^' ~- ~ z I~ ~ `~ z \~~ ,, i ~~ y ~ ~~ ~~ ~ i~~~'~~`Eei° "° M~SL~AK RE5IDENGE '`~~ c { jjj 3 t oaf ~~ ~p ~N ~ F'~~sY~,~~g'p ~i~~ C 29@ ~ E30 ~ a ~°' o ;~t,';°z;4' , ~ I I'iq SUNBURST DRIVE /LOT 12, PAIL /ALLEY r€~ ~ m ~d~i~ ~ `/AIL, GOL~RADG • i ~ ~]~~ ~ ~ i N ~ ~(1~ Rt~~f ityyd 4 - CS i ~l S ~ 3l C11 (~ ~ ( '~ d ~ ~'~ 5 ( W Ai p ~ - p ~' ~~~ R. ~~~,G~ 12 ~p.IL NI ~d(7q SUN~,URS? ~R'I~IE i LET ' nJ h t,.~n Nb~ a"~ z ~ = o c_ a'.F ~ ~ ~;', c ~'~ ~(;; • ~~ t s ~- ; r~ ~p"sz n° ~~ 6 ~` 2 R ~~ ~~~ j~G¢ s ~~8f ~~+~ ~ +_ ~ - as :~~~ ~ ~ 3 q'ia SUNBURST DR1VE ! SOT 12, VAIL VP~L.LEY ~! i ~ ~~ _ ~ •0 z rn m fti n ~. -i o O Z ~w N ~~ rn ~n '` .a' -i-~` ~ I 4 4 Y ~~ O[ O[ ^~~ ^ nill~ ~ ^O ~ ~~~~ ~ ~~~ ~~ I' . l i -' ~ I c I ~.,I:i _i,~ t II I ~ ~~ - `~{y ~ I I ~~:' ~ I .. ~ ... - i z i _~~ ~1 3 ~,r ~a ,~~, I i ~ ~ I ] I 111 ~~ ~~ (P ~rn _~ 40 z D ~~ 00 Z d I ' I II ~~~ I ~r~ -' A{t. l ~ I 11 ~J I o _I ,_ .I II O I I I ~ - I I ~ -1 O° ~ 1tl~fl ~~ I ~u~~ ~~ T ~, ~w ~- ~~ f~~~,: I. ~+r,~r,7 ~. r 1r~,1n`' I i I I i ~~ "~ ~' _,:},. MASLAK f~.~51DENCE F ~ "~" s ~ 3a;_'. ,~, ~ € 1~7`~ SUNBURST DRIVE /LOT I~, VAIL VALLEY ~ • • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 8, 2006 SUBJECT: A request for a final review of an amendment to a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7H-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, and a final review of an amendment to a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-7H-2, Permitted and Conditional Uses; Basement or Garden Level, and 12-7H-3, Permitted and Conditional Uses; First Floor on Street Level, Vail Town Code to allow for the development of 4 additional multi-family residential dwelling units (total of 111 dwelling units), located at 728 West Lionshead Circle/Lot 2, West Day Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (Ritz-Carlton Residences)(PEC05-0021 and PEC05-x022). Applicant: Vail Resorts Development Company, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Warren Campbell • I. SUMMARY The applicant, Vail Resorts Development Company, represented by Braun Associates, Inc., is requesting a final review of an amendment to a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7H-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, and a final review of an amendment to a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-7H-2, Permitted and Conditional Uses; Basement or Garden Level, and 12-7H-3, Permitted and Conditional Uses; First Floor on Street Level, Vail Town Code to allow for the development of 4 additional multi- family residential dwelling units (total of 111 dwelling units), located at 728 West Lionshead Circle/Lot 2, West Day Subdivision. Upon review of the various requests, staff is recommending that the Planning and Environmental Commission approves with conditions the amendment to the major exterior alteration and conditional use permit applications. ll. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The purpose of this public hearing is to present an amendment to the final plans and development review applications for the proposed Ritz-Carlton Residences to the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission for final review. The applicant, Vail Resorts Development Company, represented by Braun Associates, Inc., is requesting a final review of an amendment to a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7H-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, and a final review of an amendment to a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-7H-2, Permitted and Conditional Uses; Basement or Garden Level, and 12-7H-3, Permitted and Conditional Uses; First Floor on Street Level, Vail Town Code to allow for the development of 4 additional multi- family residential dwelling units (total of 111 dwelling units), located at 728 West Lionshead Circle/Lot 2, West Day Subdivision. The location of the requested additional four dwelling units is on the southwest portion of the property where a potential ski lift was previously proposed to be located when the Ritz-Carlton was initially designed. As it has been discussed, through the continuing process of amending the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan to include additional parcels referred to as "West Lionshead", it has been discussed that the better location of a potential future ski lift is at the location of the old Amoco/BP service station site. The proposed Ritz-Carlton Residences project is on the third and final parcel of the comprehensive development site encompassing the existing Marriott Hotel, the Gore Creek Residences, and the West Day Lot parking area. The West Day Lot parking area and the existing Marriott parking structure sites total 2.399 acres in size and is location of the approve 107 dwelling unit Ritz-Carlton Residences project. A vicinity map identifying the location of the development site has been attached for reference (Attachment A). A reduced set of plans dated March 24, 2006, showing the changes in clouded areas, are attached for reference (Attachment B). The Ritz-Carlton Residences amended proposal is comprised of two (2) different development review applications. Each application is intended to facilitate the redevelopment proposal. The development applications include: A major exterior alteration application for four (4) additional • dwelling units to the approved new 107 multiple-family dwelling unit structure, bringing the total number of units within the project to 111; and A conditional use permit application for "lodge rooms or dwelling units" located on the basement or garden level and the first floor or street level of the structure to allow for two (2) additional dwelling units bringing the total number of units granted a conditional use permit to 24.. The key elements of the amended proposal include: An additional 4 dwelling units to the approved 107 multiple-family dwelling unit condominium structure; An additional 10,744 square feet of GRFA bringing the total GRFA of the structure to 230,585 square feet; and The reservation of two locations within the structure for future commercial/retail. III. BACKGROUND The subject development site includes several parcels of land currently used for the Marriott Hotel, the parking structure for the Marriott Hotel, the Gore Creek Residences, and the West Day Lot parking area. On December 13, 2004, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved a minor subdivision establishing the West Day Subdivision which is comprised of 2 __ three parcels. The approval and recording of the West Day Subdivision was the culmination of the review of the Gore Creek residences during which it was agreed that the three lots comprising the West Day Subdivision would be tied . together for zoning purposes. A note was placed upon the West Day Subdivision which states the following: "For the purposes of zoning, Lots 1, 2, and 3, created by this subdivision are to be treated as one development site. Development standards shall be based upon the improvements and land area of the combined area of Lots 7, 2, and 3. " As a part of the approval of the West Day Subdivision, a spreadsheet identifying the development potential for each of the three parcels was approved in conjunction with the minor subdivision. That spreadsheet, was entitled, "West Day Lot/Marriott Hotel/Gore Creek Place Approved Development Plan/Development Allocations", and dated December 6, 2004. Staff has updated the "West Day Lot/Marriott Hotel/Gore Creek Place Approved Development Plan/Development Allocations" spreadsheet to reflect the development potential to be utilized by the proposed Ritz-Carlton Residences, dated May 8, 2006, which is attached for reference (Attachment C). Marriott Hotel History (Lot 1 of the West Day Subdivison) The Marriott (previously "The Mark") was approved by the Town in 1977 as a hotel and condominium project and was zoned Special Development • District No. 7 by Ordinance 3, Series of 1977. The project was expanded and modified throughout the 1980's and 1990's. In 1999 the Marriott property, along with the rest of Lionshead, was rezoned to Lionshead Mixed Use 1 and SDD No. 7 was repealed. The Marriott as developed today includes 35 dwelling units, 276 hotel rooms, meeting rooms, a restaurant, and other hotel amenities. West Day Lot/Ritz-Carlton Residences History (Lot 2 of the West Day Subdivision) The western portion of the site (the Morcus Subdivision), known as the "West Day Lot", was regraded and used for Vail Resorts employee parking. Prior to the rezoning of this parcel to Lionshead Mixed Use 1 in 1999, the property was zoned Parking District. On November 28, 2005, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved a major exterior alteration application and conditional use permit application to facilitate the development of a 107 dwelling unit multiple-family structure on Lot 2 of the West Day Subdivision. The approval included a 112 feet tall architectural landmark tower. This approval was granted after several public work session hearings on August 22, September 12, 26, October 10, 24, November 2, and 14, 2005. 3„ Gore Creek Residences History (Lot 3 of the West Day Subdivision): On November 24, 2003, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved text amendments to Section 12-7H-5, Conditional Uses; Generally (on all levels of a building or outside a building), Vail Town Code, to allow single-family residential dwellings and two-family residential dwellings as conditional uses in the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District and Section 12-16-7, Use Specific Criteria and Standards, Vail Town Code, to provide criteria to which asingle-family and two-family residential dwelling proposal within the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District must adhere. The text amendments were subsequently approved by Town Council upon second reading in Ordinance 36, Series of 2003, on December 16, 2003. On June 28, 2004, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved, with conditions, a conditional use permit and a major exterior alteration application on this site for eight two-family structures for a total of 16 dwelling units. IV. ROLES OF THE REVIEWING BOARDS The purpose of this section of the memorandum is to clarify the responsibilities of the Design Review Board, Planning and Environmental Commission, Town Council, and Staff on the various applications submitted on behalf of Vail Resorts Development Company. A. Exterior Alteration/Modification in the Lionshead Mixed-Use I • zone district Order of Review: Generally, applications will be reviewed first by the Planning and Environmental Commission for impacts of use/development and then by the Design Review Board for compliance of proposed buildings and site planning. Planning and Environmental Commission: Action: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for final approval/denial of a Major/Minor Exterior Alteration. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall review the proposal for compliance with the adopted criteria. The Planning and Environmental Commission's approval "shall constitute approval of the basic form and location of improvements including siting, building setbacks, height, building bulk and mass, site improvements and landscaping." Design Review Board: Action: The Design Review Board has no review authority on a Major or Minor Exterior Alteration, but must review any accompanying Design Review Board application. Staff.• The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided and plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with 4 the design guidelines. Staff provides a staff memo containing background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. Town Council: Actions of Design Review Board or Planning and Environmental Commission may be appealed to the Town Council or by the Town Council. Town Council evaluates whether or not the Planning and Environmental Commission or Design Review Board erred with approvals or denials and can uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the board's decision. B. Conditional Use Permit (CUPI Order of Review: Generally, applications will be reviewed first by the Planning and Environmental Commission for acceptability of use and then by the Design Review Board for compliance of proposed buildings and site planning. Planning and Environmental Commission: Action: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for final approval/denial of CUP. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall review the request for compliance with the adopted • conditional use permit criteria and make findings of fact with regard to the project's compliance. Design Review Board: Action: The Design Review Board has no review authority on a CUP, but must review any accompanying Design Review Board application. Staff.• The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided and plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines. Staff .provides a staff memo containing background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. Town Council: Actions of Design Review Board or Planning and Environmental Commission may be appealed to the Town Council or by the Town Council. Town Council evaluates whether or not the Planning and Environmental Commission or Design Review Board erred with approvals or denials and can uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the board's decision. a V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS VI. This portion of the memorandum was removed as it was fully discussed and elaborated at the November 28, 2005, PEC public hearing and made a part of the record. This portion of the memorandum from November 28, 2005 is available upon request from the Community Development Department staff. ZONING ANALYSIS Address/Legal Description: 720 and 728, West Lionshead Circle, and 825 West Forest Road/Lots 1, 2, 3, West Day Subdivision Parcel Size: 6.82 acre (297,165 sq. ft.) Zoning: Lionshead Mixed Use 1 Land Use Designation: Resort Accommodations and Services The West Day Lot Development is comprised of three parcels which include the existing Marriott Hotel and the 16 Gore Creek Place Residences, and the proposed Ritz-Carlton Residences. As was stated previously in the memorandum, these three parcels are tied together and treated as one large development site by the recorded plat, for zoning purposes. Below is a zoning analysis which incorporates all three parcels and the developments which exist, are under construction, and are proposed on the three lots. This analysis will become a part of the Approved Development Plan for the three parcels included within the_ West Day Lot Development Site. Development Standard Allowed Existin4 Proposed Land Uses: Lot 1 - Marriot Hotel Lot 2 -West Day Lot and Marriott Hotel Parking Structure Lot 3 -Gore Creek Residences Lot Area: 10,000 sq. ft. 297,165 sq. ft. 297,165 sq. ft. • Setbacks All Sides: 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. Building Height: 71 ft. avg. 70 ft. avg. 58.9 ft. avg. 82.5 ft. max 80.5 ft. max 82.5 ft. max Density: 238 DUs (35/ac.) 51 DU (7.5/ac.) 162 DU (23.7/ac.) Unlimited AUs 276 AU 276 AU GRFA: 742,912 sq. ft. 213,239 sq. ft. 443,824 sq. ft. Site Coverage: 208,015 sq. ft. 148,076 sq. ft. 204,344 sq. ft. (70%) (49.8%) (68.8%) Landscape Area: 59,433 sq. ft. (20%) 139,713 sq. ft. (41 %) 108,551 sq. ft. (36.5%) Parking: 162 (1.4/DU) 439 spaces 500 spaces 276 (0.7/AU) 6 The following analysis is performed solely on the site proposed to be the location of the Ritz-Carlton Residences. Address/Legal Description: 728 West Lionshead Circle/Lot 2 West Day Subdivision Parcel Size: 2.399 acre (104,500 sq. ft.) Zoning: Lionshead Mixed Use 1 Land Use Designation: Resort Accommodations and Services Development Standard Allowed Existing Proposed Land Uses: Lot 2 -West Day Lot and Marriott Hotel Parking Structure Lot Area: 10,000 sq. ft. 104,500 sq. ft. 104,500 sq. ft Setbacks All Sides: 10 ft. NA 10 ft. Building Height: 71 ft. avg. NA 65.8 ft. avg. 82.5 ft. max 82.5 ft. max Density: 83 DUs (35/ac.) NA 111 DU (46.3/ac.) . Unlimited AUs GRFA: 261,250 sq. ft. NA 230,585 sq. ft. Site Coverage: 73,150 sq. ft. NA 78,870 sq. ft. . (70%) (75.5%) Landscape Area: 20,900 sq. ft. (20%) NA 15,519 sq. ft. (14.8%) Softscape: 16,720 sq. ft. (80%) 11,339 sq. ft. (54.3%) Hardscape: 4,180 sq. ft. (20%) 15, 703 sq. ft. (75.1 %) Parking: 155.4 (1.4/DU) NA 390 spaces` 8.84 (1/300sq. ft. retail) Loading 3 berths NA 3 berths * Of the parking 390 parking spaces proposed, 149 spaces will serve the Ritz-Carlton Residences and 208 will serve as replacement spaces for the Marriott Hotel. There are a total of 34 surplus spaces provided in the Ritz Carlton parking structure. VII. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING, Land Use Zoning North: Residential Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District South: Open Space Natural Area Preservation District East: Residential Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District West: Public Utility General Use District 7 VIII. MAJOR EXTERIOR ALTERATION REVIEW CRITERIA • Section 12-7H-8, Compliance Burden, Vail Town Code, outlines the review criteria for major exterior alteration applications proposed within the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 (LMU-1) zone district. According to Section 12-7H-8, Vail Town Code, a major exterior alteration shall be reviewed for compliance with the following criteria: That the proposed major exterior alteration is in compliance with the purposes of the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 zone district; Staff Response: The purposes of the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 zone district are stated in Section 12-7H-1, Purpose, Vail Town Code. As stated, the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 zone district is intended to provide sites within the area of Lionshead for a mixture of multiple-family dwellings, hotels, fractional fee clubs, restaurants, skier services and commercial/retail establishments. The development standards prescribed for the district were established to provide incentives for development in accordance with the goals and objectives of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. In reviewing the proposed amendment to the Ritz-Carlton Residences project for compliance with the expressed purposes of the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 zone district, staff finds that the major exterior alteration application complies with the intent of the zone district. The applicant is proposing to • develop a 111 (four more additional from previous approval) fee simple condominium project and is leaving two areas, totaling 2,653 square feet available for commercial/retail uses. As the Town and the applicant are currently involved in a master planning effort for West Lionshead and the potential for a new ski lift, the applicant has chosen to leave two potential condominiums available for future commercial/retail usage. Please see sheet A101 of the attached reduced plans for exact locations. Each of these proposed uses comply with the stated purpose of the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 zone district. Emplovee Housing Requirements As indicated in a number of the goals and objectives of the Town's Master Plans, providing affordable housing for employees is a critical issue which should be addressed through the planning process for special development district proposals. In reviewing the proposal for employee housing needs, staff relied on the Town of Vail Employee Housing Report. This report has been used by the staff in the past to evaluate employee housing needs. The guidelines contained within the report were used most recently in the review of the Austria Haus, Marriott, Four Seasons, Manor Vail Lodge, and Special Development District No. ti - Vail Village Inn development proposals. The Employee Housing Report was prepared for the Town by the consulting firm Rosall, Remmen and Cares. The report provides the • recommended ranges of employee housing units needed based on the type of use and the amount of floor area dedicated to each use. Utilizing the guidelines prescribed in the Employee Housing Report, staff analyzed . the incremental increase of employees (square footage per use) that results from the redevelopment. C7 • The figures identified in the report are based on surveys of the commercial-use employment needs of the Town of Vail and other mountain resort communities. As of the drafting of the report, Telluride, Aspen and Whistler, B.C. had "employment generation" ordinances requiring developers to provide affordable housing for a percentage of the new employees resulting from commercial development. "New" employees are defined as the incremental increase in employment needs resulting from commercial redevelopment. Each of the communities assesses a different percentage of affordable housing a developer must provide for the new employees. For example, Telluride requires developers to provide housing for 40% (0.40) of the new employees, Aspen requires that 60% (0.60) of the new employees are provided housing, and Whistler requires that 100% (1.00) of the new employees be provided housing by the developer. In comparison, Vail has conservatively determined that developers shall provide housing for 15% (0.15) or 30% (0.30) of the new employees resulting from commercial development. When a project is proposed to exceed the density allowed by the underlying zone district, the 30% (0.30) figure is used in the calculation. 1f a project is proposed at, or below, the density allowed by the underlying zone district, the 15% (0.15) figure is used. The Crossroads special development district does exceed the density permitted by the underlying zone district in both number of dwelling units and GRFA so the 30% ratio was used. Proposed Project Emplovee Generation Calculations -Middle of Ranae a) Multi-Family (Dwelling Units) 111 new units proposed @ (0.4/unit) b) Retail and Service Commercial 2,653 sq. ft. @ (5.0/1000 sq. ft.) = 44.4 employees = 13.3 employees 57.7 employees x.15 8.7 employees According to the calculations above, the applicant must establish 9 new deed-restricted employee beds ("pillows"). The applicants are proposing to provide the required deed-restricted employee housing units off-site through the future construction of an employee housing/office facility on the North Day Lot. The applicant has agreed that the units will be provided prior to requesting a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the project. The applicant will deed restrict the units under the appropriate deed restrictions depending upon which zone district the property is located in. In the previous meeting, the Commission asked for greater • detail on how a "bed" will be defined in regards to the deed restricting of units. For example if the applicant constructed a unit containing three bedrooms this could potentially count as six employee "beds". Staff believes that the proposed amended major exterior alteration is in compliance with the purposes of the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 zone district as demonstrated by the discussion above. 2. That the proposal is consistent with applicable elements of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan; Staff Response: In conjunction with the current approvals for the Ritz-Carlton Residences the PEC held work sessions on August 22, September 12 and 26, October 10 and 24, and November 14, 2005, to discuss the implementation policies of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan and to review the project's compliance with goals and objectives stated in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Ptan. Following discussions of the goals and objectives of the Master Plan, the Commission believed that the proposed major exterior alteration was consistent with the applicable elements of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. In these six public hearing the Commission identified issues which required additional study and consideration by the applicant that were identified by a majority • of the Commissioners. Those issues included the amount of flat roofed area on the structure, the height of the proposed mechanical screening, and the height of the architectural landmark tower. All of these issues were resolved to the satisfaction of the PEC. Chapter 5 of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan outlines the possible land uses which should be constructed on the West Day Lot. According to Section 5.17, in part, the West Day Lot is identified as, ".. the mosf appropriate for ahigher-end fee simple or fractional fee development." Staff believes that the proposed amendment to the major exterior alteration for the Ritz-Carlton Residences is consistent with the applicable elements of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. 3. That the proposal does not otherwise have a significant negative effect on the character of the neighborhood; and, Staff Response: Staff has reviewed the proposed amended Ritz-Carlton Residences project in an attempt to identify any significant negative impacts that may be created on the character of the neighborhood as a result of the • construction of the hotel project. While staff was able to identify several significant negative effects that the original proposal would have had (i.e., 10 amount of flat-roofed area, exceeding maximum allowable heights in • order to construct mechanical screening, and an excessively tall (140 feet tower) on the character of the neighborhood during our initial review of the development application, the applicant made revisions to the approved plan to effectively eliminate those negative effects. For example, the flat roofed areas were reduced and roof-top terraces have been incorporated, the mechanical screening which exceeded the maximum allowable height was removed, and the landmark tower was reduced to 112 feet in height. Staff believes that the proposed amended major exterior alteration will not result in any significant negative effects on the character of the neighborhood. 4. That the proposal substantially complies with other applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan. Staff Resaonse: Staff has reviewed the Vail Comprehensive Plan to determine which elements of the Plan apply to the review of the amended Ritz-Carlton Residences project. Upon review of the Plan, staff has determined that the following elements of the Plan apply: • Transportation Master Plan (adopted 1993) • Comprehensive Open Lands Plan (adopted 1994) • Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan (adopted 1998) • Art in Public Places Strategic Plan (adopted 2001) The applicant has agreed to make a financial contribution to the Town of Vail or to construct physical improvements in accordance with the recommendations of the Transportation Master Plan and the Art in Public Places Strategic Plan. A review of the Comprehensive Open Lands Plan affirms that the recommended actions outlined in the Plan have already been fully implemented within the west Lionshead (West Day Lot) area, and therefore, no further action is required at this time. And lastly, as discussed under Criteria #3 above, the applicant is implementing the numerous actions and recommendations as stated in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. For these reasons, staff believes that the applicant has complied with the above criteria. Overall, staff believes that the applicant has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed amended exterior alteration or new development is in compliance with the purposes of the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 zone district, that the proposal is consistent with applicable elements of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan and that the proposal does not otherwise have a significant negative effect on the character of the neighborhood, and that the proposal substantially complies with other applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan. • 11 Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the amended major exterior alteration application, staff recommends that the Commission makes the following finding as part of the motion: "Pursuant to Section 12-7H-8, Compliance Burden, Vail Town Code, the applicant has proven by a preponderance of the evidence before the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Design Review Board that the proposed major exterior alteration is in compliance with the purposes of the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 zone district, that the proposal is consistent with applicable elements of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan and that the proposal does not otherwise have a significant negative effect on the character of the neighborhood, and that the proposal substantially complies with other applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan. " IX. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVIEW CRITERIA As previously discussed in Section II of this memorandum, the applicant is requesting approval of an amended conditional use permit application, pursuant to Section 12-7H-2, Permitted and Conditional Uses; Basement or Garden Level, and 12-7H-3, Permitted and Conditional Uses; First Floor on Street Level, to construct dwelling units within the Garden Level and on the First Floor of the proposed structure, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions outlined in Chapter 16, Conditional Use Permits, Vail Town Code. Section 12-16-6, Criteria; Findings, Vail Town Code, outlines the review criteria for conditional uses permit requests proposed within the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 (LMU-1) zone district. According to Section 12-16-6, Vail Town Code, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the proposed use: Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the town. Staff Response: The proposal requesting 2 additional dwelling units on the garden level and first floor is consistent with the development objectives of the Town. The Lionshead Mixed Use 1 zone district allows for dwelling units on the garden level and first floor as a conditional use in order to allow for each individual site and circumstances to be reviewed for the appropriateness of the use. Typically, retail uses are preferred on the garden level and first floor of a structure in Lionshead. However, the grade of the Ritz-Carlton Residences site, surrounding land uses, and the lack of pedestrian activity make retail a land use which is not appropriate nor likely successful within the project. In addition, Section 5.17 of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan identifies the site of the proposed Ritz-Carlton Residences as "appropriate for ahigher--end fee simple" development. If the two (2) additional units are granted a conditional use permit it would bring the number of units granted a conditional use to be on the garden or first floor levels to 24 dwelling units. 12 In response to concerns from the Town Council, the Planning and Environmental • Commission, and staff, the applicant has set aside two areas on the first floor level as potential commercial/retail locations. These spaces will be held as potential locations for retail uses if it is determined through the amendment to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan to include "West Lionshead" master planning process that retail is appropriate in these locations with the possibility of anew ski lift and more redevelopment on the adjacent parcels to the west. If it is determined that retail is not appropriate for these two spaces the applicant will return to a future hearing and request a conditional use permit for the spaces to become dwelling units. 2. Effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs. Staff Response: The proposed two (2) additional dwelling units will have little, if any, negative impact on the above-described criteria. The proposed dwelling units are allowed with the zone district and are not likely to significantly effect the distribution of population, negatively impact schools, utilities, parks, etc, or put a strain on existing public facilities. 3. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, • maneuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking areas. Staff Response: The proposed development of the Ritz-Carlton Residences will more likely result in significant positive improvements to the above-described criteria rather than result in negative effects. For example, automotive and pedestrian safety will be improved due to the construction of streetscape improvements to the South Frontage Road and removal of snow from streets and parking areas will be improved due to the proposed snowmelt system on the access drive between the Marriott and the Ritz-Carlton Residences and the construction of the underground parking structure. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. Staff Response: The proposed dwelling units and accompanying structure are being constructed in conformance with the development standards and design guidelines established for the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 zone district. That said, a considerable amount of time has been spent to date to ensure that the development as a whole will have a positive overall effect upon the character of • the area. Also, as discussed in Section VIII of this memorandum, the overall development of the Ritz-Carlton Residences complies with the goals and objectives specifically stated in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. 13 Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the • application, staff recommends that the Commission make the following findings before granting a conditional use permit: 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the Zoning Regulations and the purposes of the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 zone district. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Regulations. X. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Maior Exterior Alteration The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission approves with conditions the request for a final review of an amendment to a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12- 7H-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the development of 4 additional multi-family residential dwelling units (total of 111 • dwelling units), located at 728 West Lionshead Circle/Lot 2, West Day Subdivision. Staff's recommendation is based upon the review of the major exterior alteration review criteria outlined in Section VIII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented at the public hearing. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the application as recommended, staff recommends that the Commission makes the following finding as part of the motion: "Pursuant to Section 12-7H-8, Compliance Burden, Vail Town Code, the applicant has proven by a preponderance of the evidence before the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Design Review Board that the proposed major exterior alteration is in compliance with the purposes of the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 zone district, that the proposal is consistent with applicable elements of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan and that the proposal does not otherwise have a significant negative effect on the character of the neighborhood, and that the proposal substantially complies with other applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan. " Staff has included the complete list of conditions applied to the November 28, 2005, Planning and Environmental Commission approval of the Ritz-Carlton with changes made only where applicable to address the proposed amendment. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the amended major exterior alteration as submitted by the applicant, staff recommends that the following conditions be placed on the approval: 14 • For Desian Review 1) That the Developer submits a complete application to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for the final review and approval of the proposed development plan by the Town of Vail Design Review Board, prior to making an application for the issuance of a building permit for any of the Ritz- Carlton Residences improvements. Prior to Submittina for Buildina Permits 2) That the Developer submits a Construction Staging Plan to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for the review and approval of the proposed staging plan by the Town of Vail Public Works Department, prior to the issuance of a building permit for the Ritz-Carlton Residences improvements. 3) That the Developer prepares aRitz-Carlton Residences Site Art in Public Places Plan, for input and comment by the Town of Vail Art in Public Places Board, prior to the issuance of a building permit for the Ritz-Carlton Residences site improvements. Subject to the above input and comment by the Art in Public places Board, Vail Associates will determine the type and location of the art to be provided. Said Plan shall include the funding for a minimum of $100,000.00 in public art improvements to be developed in conjunction with the Ritz-Carlton Residences site. The implementation of the Plan will be reasonably incorporated by Vail Associates into the Ritz-Carlton • Residences construction schedule in accordance with generally prevailing construction practices. 4) That the Developer submits a complete set of civil engineered drawings of the Approved Development Plans including the required off site improvements, to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for review and approval of the drawings, prior to making application for the issuance of a building permit for the Ritz-Carlton Residences improvements. Prior to Reauestina a Temoorarv Certificate of Occupancv 5) That the Developer provides deed-restricted employee housing that complies with the Town of Vail Employee Housing requirements (Chapter 12-13) 9 employees, and that said restrictions shall be made available for occupancy, prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy for the Ritz- Carlton Residences improvements. In addition, the deed-restrictions shall be legally executed by the Developer and duly recorded with the Eagle County Clerk & Recorder's Office, prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy for the Ritz-Carlton Residences improvements The Developer may provide required employee housing on an interim basis, not to exceed four (4) years (November 28, 2008) except that ultimately the Developer will be required to furnish permanent facilities for the Ritz-Carlton Residences employee housing requirements. 6) That the Developer shall be assessed a transportation impact fee in the amount of $5,000 per increased vehicle trip in the peak hour generated (56 15 trips), or $280,000, and a fee of $6,500 for the increased peak hour vehicle trips (6 trips) or $39,000, created by the amendment to add four additional dwelling units, as a result of the Ritz-Carlton Residences improvements. The total fee of $319,000 shall be paid in full by the Developer prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy or certificate of occupancy for the Ritz- Carlton Residences improvements. At the sole discretion of the Town of Vail Public Works Director, said fee may be waived in full, or part, based upon the completion of certain off-site improvements. If the improvements as shown on the plans entitled "The Ritz-Carlton Residences (based on CDOT requirements)", dated October 21, 2005, and as approved on November 28, 2005, by the PEC are constructed and completed by the Developer, said. fee shall be waived in full by the Town. Conditional Use Permit The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission approves the request for final review of an amendment to a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-7H-2, Permitted and Conditional Uses; Basement or Garden Level, and 12-7H-3, Permitted and Conditional Uses; First Floor on Street Level, Vail Town Code to allow for the development of 2 additional multi-family residential dwelling units (total of 24 dwelling units) on the garden level or first floor of the proposed structure, located at 728 West Lionshead Circle/Lot 2, West Day Subdivision. Staff's recommendation is based upon the review of the conditional use permit review criteria outlined in Section IX of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented at the public hearing. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the applications as recommended by staff, the Commission must make the following findings before granting the conditional use permits: 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the Zoning Regulations and the purposes of the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 zone district. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Regulations. XII. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Vicinity Map Attachment B: Reduced copy of the proposed plans dated March 24, 2006 Attachment C: "West Day LotJMarriott Hotel/Gore Creek Place Approved Development Plan/Development Allocations" spreadsheet dated May 8, 2006. Attachment D: Public Notice . 16 ~.,~,.~ ~..~.~ vim. - ~ ~-~ ati ~~~ ~ ~ : ~'"~' ~ 1, tF~ Y ,},.. ~~ ~ ~ "~ ~~~ ~ ~ = ~ e n~~.. ~~,~ - ''~;~ ~.;~~ 'A ~; 5 -tee n wL I .~ ~ } ~y a.R . L ; ~i. ~rl., j ~ W `u:, EE 3 R H ~' f~ t ~i = wF ~~ O cv ~ - ~t~ ,,,~ - +. ~ „~ w,~+ ~ .t ~ ~' ; ~~ _ ~~ ~ a ~ ` t ' `~` z V ~~ '~ - , y ,~ 4{. ~ ., ~ ~. „f t ~~ y.^ ' ~*°'~ ~ ~ ~ ,w ~ Y ~ 1 Y ~ W ~ ,A k ~_ ~ ; ~~V ;; ~: yr~y d ~ ww r h ~ rr l ~ L ~ J ~N t ~t. ~ ~t<s~kcN ;E+~ , ~ ~ w~ a g ~~y F v ~ pg~ '` ~'. s"~ ~ _ '~: t: A ~., ir~* -ro ~k+. Div ~,u~ < a - . ,~ ~.6 ~ `" ~ .1, ~~~ _ 1. 1' {.~ '1~ a fn F 4t ~~ :~ ._ ,~~ ~ W ~, F ~ ~~, k r L ~ ~;~ ,-' ; ~f it ~~ ~ t» to r ~.'?: ~~' ',~,_ CC~ ~ _ ~. ~' - f ~ `'~~n O ~. `~~. C r a' Y. vI ~i,~ n,. ~' Lt ~ ~ q,. ~'' 4... ~ ~'` }A f <`~"3. X11, 7t~-~ `~"" ~b ,.. ~ Ursa ~~ b ~ '.. `3.si' t~"fi ,._ 4+1R,- '.1 t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .4 ~ ~t~" `f... S ~ ~ ,~~ ~ h y n4~ ~] Attachment: A ~ r ^~ d 0 0 0 °o 1 `m V a R d O N d d E m m a C d E a 0 d . > d O ._. 9 N m ~ ~ N p_ O -y ~mn O ~ U a U ~_ c ~ ~ O ~ C d C .~ v ; ~ .N m 'D U O ~ O ~ U n a 3 m o ~ c N ~ jq ~ C ~( ~ O W N ~~ C N o O_ ~, rn }' o V N~ 0 ~ ~ _w~ ~ w C 1.L ~ a 3 Y ~ m ICO 0. m r V ~ E E U L O y 3 d N m d "~ t ~ ` ~ ~ ~ a ~ J O d d c _ •' ~ m C ~ d ~£ W C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~' t O R 4 m o m F- } ~ N ~ O Q O .J J ~ d ~, a ~y Q p > >, 5 E O M, O ca ~ °~ E- C. Y N ~ Sd ~ ~ W Q O ti c x E E a C ~ ,n d N ~ ~ ~ ~ d 10 ~ N N N N ~ ) N N 61 ~ c 'T ~ o m o ~n o A w U V ~ oND ~ U . a ~ 1` ~ ~ ~ ~ N i d N c D I~ t O C . ~ o ~ a E u? ~ ~ IL C 0 S O m a rM. (O v ~ ~ Q~ N NI L t ~ i N U •: f6 ~ a L N W q o~ N ` r1 ~ U1 ~ ~ O N N U map N r ~: a rn c ~ ~ Y u ¢ o E in.m~a a~c7~ U d a u° 0 ~ ~ N m ~ U f0 c t a c l0 N '] I " ~ V ~ i 3d.-°-' f6 ~ ~ ~ 1 N O L Y m N ~-' p ~ Y pj ~ ~ f `m ~ ~ ~ ! o m Q E m ay. M Ul N 1 0 c 3 d rn c m n c o d Attachment: C • ~~~~~;~~;' THIS ITEM MAPUBL C NOTIOER PROPERTY NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with section 12-3-6, Vail Town Code, on April 24, 2006, at 2:00 pm in the Town of Vail Municipal Building, in consideration of: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for Ski Base Recreation 2 zone district on a 5.13 parcel of land commonly referred to as the "Front Door USFS land exchange parcel", located at 151 Vail Lane/ (A complete legal description is available at the Community Development Department), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0014) Applicant: United States of America, by and through the Forest Service, represented by Vail Resorts Development Company Planner: George Ruther A request for a final review of a variance, from Section 12-6D-9, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a site coverage variance to construct a residential addition, located at 1816 Sunburst Drive, Units A and B/Lot 1 Vail Valley Filing 3 and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0016) • Applicant,: John K. and Helen Jo Cahalin, represented by RKD Architects Planner: Warren Campbell A request for a final review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7H-7, Major Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the renovation of the Lion's Square Lodge North, located at 660 West Lionshead Place/Lot 8, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0019) Applicant: Lion's Square Lodge North Condominium Association, represented by Viele Development Planner: Bill Gibson A request for a final review of a text amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendments, Vail Town Code, to allow for an amendment to Section 12-21-14, Restrictions in Specific Zones on Excessive Slopes, Vail Town Code, to increase the amount of allowable site coverage on lots with excessive slopes from 15% to 20%, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0020) Applicant: Helmut Reiss, represented by Isom & Associates Planner: Matt Gennett A request for a final review of an amendment to a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7H-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, and a final ~~~ review of an amendment to a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-7H-2, ~ Permitted and Conditional Uses; Basement or Garden Level, and 12-7H-3, Permitted ~il'~ and Conditional Uses; First Floor on Street Level, Vail Town Code to allow for the development of 4 additional multi-family residential dwelling units (total of 111 dwelling V units), located at 728 West Lionshead Circle/Lot 2, West Day Subdivision, and setting Attachment: D forth details in regard thereto. (Ritz-Carlton Residences)(PEC05-0021 and PEC05- 0022). Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc., represented by Jay Peterson Planner: Warren Campbell A request for a final review of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for an amendment to an existing platted building envelope, located at 1722 Buffehr Creek Road/Lot 5, Block A, Lia Zneimer Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0025) Applicant: Crack of Noon, L.P., represented by KH Webb Architects Planner: Elisabeth Eckel Reed A request for final review of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for floodplain modifications, located at 2764, 2754, and 2695 South Frontage Road/Lots A, B, and C, Stephens Subdivision; and a request for a final review of floodplain modifications, pursuant to Chapter 14-6, Grading Standards, Vail Town Code, to allow for grading within the floodplain, located at 2764, 2754, and 2695 South Frontage Road/Lots A, B, and C, Stephens Subdivision, and 2450 South Frontage Road/Unplatted and setting forth details in regard. (PEC06-0001 and PEC06-0027) Applicant Town of Vail, Louise Young, Brian Hoyt, Maggie Froning, Lorraine Howenstine, and Chas Bernhardt Planner: Bill Gibson A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for proposed text amendments • to Section 12-7H-5, Conditional Uses; Generally (On all Levels of a Building or Outside of a Building), to allow for seasonal use or structures as a conditional use in Lionshead Mixed Use I District; Section 12-7H-18, Mitigation of Development Impacts, to clarify the inclusiontof employee housing as a mitigation of development impacts; Section 12-8C-3, Conditional Uses, to allow for ski lifts not including loading and unloading areas as a conditional use of the Natural Area Preservation District; Subsection 12-18-56, Density Control, to clarify limitations on structures which do not conform to density controls; and Chapter 14-3, Residential Access, Driveway and Parking Standards, to clarify standards for access, driveway and parking for commercial properties; Vail Town Code, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0026) Applicant: Town of Vail, Community Development Planner: Rachel Friede The app,:ications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call 970-479-2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request, with 24-hour notification. Please call 970-479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Published April 7, 2006, in the Vail Daily. ,;'I g o e E n~~ G ~~ oavxozoo'zcvn ffi ~ ~Z $$ 0 ~ ~ a o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - - ~ _ ~Od, "II~'A.L~dS~~I~iB[QIS~2i ~ °~ ~~S ~ ~ I ~~~ ~9 ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n~. o ~lo~y'~s,Fo I~IO,I.'RIF~~'Z,LI2I H.I. ~ ~ ~ o z o ~ s o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ as" ~ J a ~ I ~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ x ~ ~ ~~ a 0 x v .~ a a y ~ ~ ~~ 9 0 ~ ~ ? m y w N ~ $s m o ~~ u~ ~~~ ~~~;.~ ~~~~n x ~~d~~w~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~~~ ~~ ~a~e 5-, °^ ~. ~~V~P~ ~ ~~s~~P~ ~ m~>€~~9 ~ m~~~~a~8 ~~ ~g ~~oH ~~~~~ ~° ~~~a~ ~g~~~~ s ~~~~a~ Z ~ ~ = ~ ~N~ A~$ d ~ ~~~ ~~~~~ ~ ~9~m~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~~M~ w ~~ ~~. ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~b~o~~~ a o~~~a ~ ~ a~~w~ ~~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ e. ~ ~~ g- Cx F~ o $~ ~ ~~ ~ s ~ ~~ ~ y ~~~,~ ~Qa~°A ~~VgB~a;b~~ u 5' ~ o v b ~~~ ~ ~ `~ ~B o~ ° ~ ~ao „~ Xw~v~,ww u ~ ~S~~~wti z ~~~$~~ y~~~~o~o a $a g~ ~a~a~9 ut9,~g n ~I z QQ .a°~ V ut .. ~~~~~ ~ ~~ ~q^~ ~ p~~"~ ~~ o~"~ z ~~~a ~ ~8~~~~~ ~~A~'w~u ~ ~~~O~c~.u z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ „ ~~s ~ ~$ yy ~~o~ ° n W;~~B~~w~ vl~0a= g~ ~s ti 15-~~ti 0'wu° U a v 0 N w x H w U 0 a 0 V 2 O H V O U ~, w H O z h~ r ~ o U ~~ N~ o ~a ~' ~ ~ W ~~ o rn Q •~ O ~ ~ m C d t V Rf Q ~ l t ~ y~O'` OOVHO"IOJ''IIVA ~ z O g ~~ ~g o ~~ ~ a~ zl~n s ~ ~ s~~u~als~x I ~ ~ ~ d-ob~ p K S . ~ ~~z ~ - ~ ~~ ~ „s ~ ~ ~ s ~ N NO,L'I2I`d~'Z I I2I ~H I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~~~ ~ I ~ ,y ~ y ti o , , , . ~ ~ ~o t o , A Q ~"' x ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~° ~ 8 ~ ~ s ~ o F~ Qi ~I Q O G:. -I-~ .~ .. ]]] M n ~ - ~ yq ~~ F F ~l J J N b b M __ - J A 6 0 V J - - b b b .- N ryry b J TJ- O _ _ b0 b O ~ C~ J - - W 00 b M _ 0 1~ N M h0 a ~ _ h n N b - ~~ - v M r - m ~i YI .. E - - -- ~ ~ v - -- ~ - g 3m x m ~s Fv & ~ ~ E ro n ~ ~ a b b R N !- (V ~ '~' Y R M ' ~ ~ ~ R Y ~ n $ ~ f b p 0 H _ _ ~- u LL ~ .a 4 $ ~ o u ~ ~ s ~ 9 b a a a w c s ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ m :Q y > u > K 7u ~ a ~ ~ ~ $ C O $ C p '8 C O $ C p ~ C p ' '- .~ N Yi V 6 3 LL' a : N rL y N ~ U U U U U p E E ~ ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ E } E E E ,~ c K K ~ G m ~ ~ u ~ FO a 7 ~ d , g m ~ j 67 ~ ~ j 61 F 0~ o ~ p3 ~ t7 ~ ~ ~ n $ b g a N 0 ~ O U N M a in b F C ~ N 2 U f N H d~ O C 1 ~ 7 ~ ~ ~ 0. 0 -F~~~./ `V U T~ V Fr `-u/ H .~ 8 B ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ $ n ~ $ s~ ~ ~ N s s s s w ~~~~~~~ ~ ^ O N ~ N M m MoI I I N YO N N O O O iOO' N J ~ N m ~O r t 0 a O ((OO d V O C ~ M M ci ~d n N _ ~ w C O V J _ Mb N O O _ O O y ro l0 ~O n N _- po _ N O of ~ C ~ Y ((VV tp O ((pp O VV Oi V O V l0 !~ ~- C N d O O O O J 9 '~j M J _ W N (O N O ~ rnq V N to cD O _ cQi N v M rd ~d n .= - v ~- OI M M N [t ry.0~ M O N f0 N E N N OI ~ n~ (o fV h I~ F N d _ _ n N fop _ o VV O O V O O tp N N ((pp N r J - M - M 8v ~ J - _ v M w - ~ ( ~ p go~ d (V m 1~ ~ M ~ o r o c~ N ~ M ~ ~o ti .°- ~ ~ ~ ~ m °r' c n u' ~ v~ ~ r° ~ E am ~ ~ ~ - of of vi M.- n c6 ani ~ ~ ~ ' g 1° ~ c m m m ~ °; ~ `E 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c ~ ni ~b in N o Jm . _ ~ bl /: ~ b~ a N o a ' ~~ b M O l V ICI O ~ ~ (V p r q Q V q N M ' z ~p N b RR M ~ ~(p~ ~ A A p~ M N O .¢¢.yyff N app~pp M p~~p OD pp A r {{++~~ ti m N N N ~ N 0 n8 _ ' ~y s ~ q d o . a ~ Z ~ ~ g N d ~' to U S~ o: ~ n. U ~ a y b w_ M m m ~ N m z a d 0 0 0 0 ° ~ ~ ` ~ a ~ ~ u v Z ~ ~ U W i ~ g U g U o g U ~- _g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ < ~ o ~ ~ y ~ ~ ~ m d z z c°~ ~ E 8 ~ E 8 ~ '~ o ~ ~ 8 o: ~ B. a rs ° ~ N 3 c w q y g c o v z a 8 o S ~ Z ~ ~ C 'V0 W f0 ~ O1 ~ 0] ~ O1 'VO W 0] - `90 U ~i ~c O~ C o o 'E 'eO N N N O S1 ury a ' ~ d ~ N ~ '~ j ,o ~ O N L O N A 0 ~ OI = m ~ iO? E N M O ~O <O H C : N ~ U 4- N 1- V a U 2 ~ F C «0 N W Z K ~ d U ~ U ~ U a ~y~¢¢ G K o ~ _ a U a ~y +y Oavx0700'7[dA ,~ a ~~ ~ zr~n z~ s~~N~aIS~I » 7 `~.o Paa~~ 1~iO+I.'I2I~'~-ZaLI2i ~H.I, iy i i 1 r ~ a n I rcq "~ n o N I ~ ~ J~ 3 ~ ~ „ ~ ~ ~a ~ ~ J 76~ 1 F~ ~ t ~1\ r ~ ~ 1 ~ ` 1 ~ 1 w 1 ~1 ~\ J~ ~ ~ / / Z ~ ~ W W `~i ~ I r •~ o° w 3k ,. ~l~ WI Ili ~ 1 J 1 1 ~ 1 11 U 1 1 O ~. ~ i ~ I W I I ~ ~ 1 ~ l ~ O ` ~ J `~ /g/ cn m / 1 /. I f f 1 I 1 '~ Q Y ~ i f c~ ~ ~ ~~' I ~ n. < re i~ r 1 ~ ~~ r ~ i 7 1 \ ~ ~ . i" ~ ~~ gN ~o m.yy 8;, °6 i'- J yew wo 3g~ Na¢ ° zV ~~ ~~o rcz Q a0 mN w 0 Now ~ F-~ O y m o a ~ 25' --~, - g - -_-- ~b,{,. ~ ~ V I ~ C~~ ~g ~~ ~~~R ~ a ~ ~ s ~ ~ N ~ a~ Q o ~ < a ~§ ~B 111 ' ~ BG `\111111\~ ~ / ` 1 ,1 r ~ _ ~~ ~~€ g~ ~o~ / 1 1, m ~~F ~ s 1111, \, / ~ o \ \ tl ~ ~~ ~ ~ `a ~ ~`r ~' ~a~€ ., ~1, 1~~ \ 1 \ s ~ n ~i c ~ F S p'" X511 E\? j9y E,>- _\ ~ LL ~ m d ng ~~ ke ~~a~ s ~g ~1 ( Nom' ~ io<~~ ~ \\ \I ~ If s ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~~ - r' x ~ zZ~^ g `\ ~~ ~,~ ~ s ~ $ ~~ ~ has p~~ ~~~~' ti w,~r ~' ~waW \ \\ ~ ~ i ~ ~ as ~ ~~~~ Sao 8" ~ '~~. ~ m ~ ~ ~ 6 ~ RRmg ~~ ~~~ gg~~ ~~~ a ~-"_ ~ ° ~ w ~ 1\ o ~ 3 ~~ ~~~g jib a~~ \ o ~~~ ~~ ~5=W ~^d T a e ~ ~'~ ZatO. \ ~I `off 07 ~>f§~ ~kaS ~ _~ ,. 1 l r = Z \ 1 1 iA ~~~~ 1 1 w \ ~I S ~ ~~,, 1 s~~ n~~ \1 ~ i x~~ °zdza ~`~ I 1 l dR ~ ~' 3J~ ~ a ~" S" v ut ~ ~rc k' ~~ 111 1 1 2 mm F°w 88 1 ',\ ~ ~°` ~°~ oo \ 1 ~1 n $3 aav ~' I ~ I 1 \ 1 ~ a~/~ o ° N ~ `~ ' J O W ~ ,- ~~ '' -JI/ O ~ ~ J ° N i I ~_-_-- ---_---, ~ 3 ~,~ _- ~ ~''~ ~ ~~ I I I I i \ 1 i ~ 1 1_ ,-- \ 1 Y No NT \ W 2 ~8~ ~'' I QQ USWSH Ep5151 ~3) ` N~g•a~'Ob l- ~ ~ CREpEPt\0 1 i _ . sp Opp \ m ~ '/ ~ N15'a7 p~ W \ ~\ 1 ~ / .~ -~ . \ \ 'W\ _ i 133;38 rr , \ \ N\ ~ N,5'47'p4 W ~ / \ \ \ W\ ~ ~`~ ~ / \ \ \ 2\ 6 ~N C 1` °~'~a orp3ry~rr o ~ ~ `~i \ ~ ~ \ s \ \ E16~ ~ \\~ 'a~ ~ 1e sb3 y"a soz ~ \ / ,~\ w ~ \~I r,\ ~ \ ZM ~ \\\ • ~ ~\\ ~~ ~ Nsry3s"r~~ oNdoe~ \ ~ \ ~~ \W '~\ ~~ ~ ~' ~ .' ~ ~ r w \ < ~i 1 ~ y o ` fir- ~ ~~ ~ _ ~ r~ 1, w ;, ~9 - - °'` ~F. ' w ~~'~~ ~\ ~. ~ dos. ~ N.1 '~ ~~ 8 f u ^: qz lR- Qi9 •~iYz \ `\ \\~ z \\\ ~. /% ~ ~.. ~ • `~ ~ \ \ Y3~ `" 3WW~3~WW®Ecccc'caaWac~LYrgL~L7~~~~~^5 \~ ~ ~\ vl \\ ~\ \ n / ~~ s •~ - ,1-~' ~- \ y 1 ~ ~yl gg tgyy$~ e0®e0®®a%aB ttn90o o~® /'i ~~'\~~\ ~'"~ \\ \ \`\ \ ~~~ n`y'~°g swlvwnacawnrtrn+'a•a~•+•nm~•s-z-ora+~e.o~ooneemwecve k a ~ i • A\ ~ ~ OQYil070~'71YA ~ ~ O ~~~ ~Q ~ ~~ ~~~Q ~ a 7 ~ ~~o~ r t~IO.I,'I2i~~-ZII.Ri ~H,L ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ (~ ~~g ~~ ~~ ,~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ z ~ `S£~9ZH OdO~ 3~b~~~l h1n03 ~~ e~~~ \~ ~~~g ~ ~a~F ~ ~~~~ r I ~ /\ ` 1 i ~ a ~_ Vin/ ~_ ~ f~N 3 ~Y g ~ z a~ n ,~_ =fig ~~J~~~# /~3~'~ I~ ~~~ (oar awiSVdW4DCf403111/11'acv'mv+~•^~r^B~aen~v~oimeer~roorn'a a '~-- ~ s N s .: ~ ~ ~ ~~ °o ~~~ ~ ~~ Q ~~~~ \ 9 e+~\\ ~ R o ~~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ _~= x ax R~ o " .5 \ ~ .. R ~~ ~`i~ ~ ~ o~ ~~ ~~ £~~do ~~~~~ ~~ 1 \ 3~~ 1 ¢ 8 ~ ~ ~~ b \ b 1 M Y O nn Oad ~ • u d Oj N E~ ui~ N ~6~ 1 ~. ~~ ~\ l ~ g~g 1 mS J ~ c ~ ~? 1 Q ~ ~ ~ f! ~_ ~ S g ~'~ 4 ~d 1 ~~ 1 ~ 1~„i `~+ ~ ~ N r W 2 ci a ~ ca F_ ~~ >v 1 N ° ~ ' ~ ~ ~ $, ~ ,, ; 1 . ~ 0 I 6 ~° 1 +s,o.a a ~a~~ ~ / 1 ~ ,o.a Z i 1 r } ~ a o,J I `J ~lp4y'~`ri`,O ti pOYHO'I00 `1NA Z~.A..I+~ S~~j~j~,QIS~ N.O.I.'RId~'Z~I,I2I SH.I. ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ U < ~ N ~ A ~ I 0 W H A W Ul O a 0 G. v J n g ,~ :J W E-+ ,-. t/7 L~ i ~ 1 (z7 1 w H Q w a O a G t1 n W H J Z}'' c Z J ["'' D ~ J w ~~ $~~ s ~~~ ~ ~ ~~s w~~ g ~~~ ~~~~ ~S~ ~~~ Sw~ ~~ x ~Q 0 ~~ ~ __ 0 ~ Q~~~~~ s° ~~Q Q ~ e ~~~~~ ~b b g ~~yy~stio~ 0 OQV1i0'100'71VA z~n s~ s~~N~ais~x Noac~xx~~-z,1,ix ~x.r. ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ o~~~ ~ ° ~$~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~~~ w ~ o ~ ~ I ~ ~ a ~d~y, ~z X150 ~ ~a~~ N ~ ~~~ ~~~ ~ Q ~~~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~- a N ~ N ~ A w W m ~ ~ O Iw-- O n- LY w py N W E N ~ ~ ~ m Z ~ F w ~ a ~ w W `~` .~ r r' "_~ :~ ~. ~.._. __ ` f5~"'-~ ~.~~. rte+'":' :~: ~. ~ o eg~~~g ~ e~_ ~ W~ d- FC FC F`i ~ ~ (V ~~ ~ Z F ~ ~ N ~ N ~ a W O ~ N Q ~ ~ w p m ~ ~ O ~ f~, w L7 Q d W F N ~ Z W ~ m N ~ ~ H ~ ~ W w r ~ w OQYNO'IO~ `'[IVA ~ ~. ~ O I ~ ~~ ~ a ~ ~' o ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z zr~A .L~ S~~N~QIS~2I s . ~ s ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ _z O ° ~~~~ ~ s ~~~ tau ~' ~ a~ ~u58 ° ~ N .. O NoAr.~~-ziix ~xx, ~ ~ ~ o ~ A N ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~ r ~8~ ~ ~ ~ z ~ x z ~ ~. y Qu> ~ d- I ~s~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~A ~ ~ ~ o " W o V \ ~~ \ \.~ d ,D-""' )1~ 11111 \\ \~ II ~ ~ ~_ H ~ ~ Z F ~ < ~ y\ ~ I ~ 1 1\~ \ 1\ I ~ c~ ~ z' `~ z ~ '~ $ z ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ 1 \ \ / ~ `~ 11 )I 1 ~\ ~\~\ //\ \\/ i ~ 111 i~`\\ I~ I I //snx~sex \ 19 8~ 1! d~ 6~ I I I I j j l i- ~ \\, ~ e - 1 ~ \\ L I AN i I I I . ja ~ /\ Yr' I 9AN9 1 J l I~ I I I I I I ~ \ \/ \" ~ > sl I L ~SA~'~/ ~ S d 0 3 II d~ 6 i~ I I I I 7. y~Vi I`a ~,~ ..~ ~ \ ~ \ Ord \V / I I ~ I I III I o ~ z ' ~~vvv r v~ AN ti I I I I I I ~~ o \\ \ ~ \~ . xAx+~- ~ --~`\> k ~n / 4 ! ~ 3 n ~ ! s ~ 1 1 ~ i i I I, i I I N \ ( ~\ I I I ~\\~ \`~> \~>\ 1\~\~ ~ ~\ / , .~ ~ \g° \ / / / A s 4 3 i it ~ 1 e ~ ~ 0 i i I I, i I I °~ o ~ \ ...~ / ~ ~ ~ FF_ a \ y.\ \ {\,~ _ oy::-. "„~ t 1 \ s ~ ~ ~ a > Q ~ ~ € ~ 8 g ~ p ~ ~ Q ~ C1 ,..\ 3~~` \` ~ n~6 ~\ lE\ \ ~. ~ $ i ~ ~s ~"q~~I~~~ ~e'"1 s~ a"/~\\ \/ ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ s c ~ ~ ~ -w~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ G a ~ a`~o $\\~~~6~3\\ \ \.~ ~~ 8 \ , I ~Ry"qy~r~~ K~ .' ~9g/~ AT 1..S3i'^~•'-I RS ~ \ ®'O©®©O~ID L~{~JF® ® B ® ® ®® M~~ ~ \ \ i" ,~\. )tlul r-frrq s .1 ., n, n ~sTB s ~ i ~ ~~%'~ `e l e J:\ I I ~ (t~E Ow 5 \ \ \\ \ 8 ~A~-^1-n~ 1 .gib ~~~_/`.~ 1\ ~ ~ r •~ I I \ ~ ~ w gav \ its' ~ ~ ~MT 7-~ ~~ as W''~{n6 ~ r ~ ~ ~~~' = rte, • ~r• 1 ~ ~L" \ 1 \ ~ ~ ~ ~a 1~ ~ 8 b ~ W Q ~ O 1 ~ ~~ ~~. Y 1 ~ w v~T~r1111111' 1 ~~~. 3~~ ~v 1 ~ ~~ ~~,. ~~ , ~ ~\ ~\\ I1 ~ / l ~'v l\1'~,~i p\I 11 Iv1 Q 1 z"~ \ ~ ~ 1 •+'a~•1 , ; 1 ~ ~~ \~ ) I '~`~ / \~ \rld\I ~~ 1'1\1\ 111 111 1 1 \i f11 IJi I~~~ so V~ ~~ \ i~/\/~ I 't~l~\I ~~1 i\111111111` 11~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y ' ,~\\ 11 IV11 t 1 1 ~ ~~ J`I 1 I' '~~~ y., `~"~I ~w':I wa ' ' / \/ 7\ I 1 _..._-.. ~ I 1 1111 \ I I \ /I 1 q~ I I ~ I ~~~YYY {_. -.._.~,,.1.~ / gi1~~S ~ I Il \ 11 I I Im~ 11 \\I I N ) 1 ryl i ~ I ""1~~ ~y' __ ._\_-~"1 ~ 11 //) / ~W~~ ~~\I ~I 1 ~ 1\11~~~ 1 1, \ \ /' /"~~II ';~j 7 ~~a I _ ~~'~%VI 11 ~ 1 / ~ ~~~~/ +1`><~1~~ I1i11111A~~~1\1 \~ _ ------~'/ ~~~ ILJ 1 II'n r. ; I ~ J / ~~.,°i-' Y° 1 ~1 1 \ \\ 1 \ 1 \ __-.~ l~ I ~1 I `~ ~ d' I~E` ` / / ~~~ ~~ )~\ 111 \I\I\1\1 \ \ 1 ~(-~- I /~~~ la ii ~ ~ ~ ~ ~I i , I ~ ~~I / / ~ / 1 i1 \I\VAVA I V vV1 ~ !I II ~ I ~/r~ I-~'~/r.~~^~~ J~ ,,..__ _ -//__ II N 1 I\I I~~ I ~ I X11\\ ~~~\,1\\1\\\\\\\\\ \ \\~ y I I J ~ i ~y , i I( i~11 /~~ J~ ~ ~~ \/ I ~/ o ~ ~vVAA\\VAA VA VA ~~z~.C I I ~ I .. ~ I ~ I I'i l\\~/ ~~~~ I / ~" ` \\ \ \ \ \ J I I b ~ I ~ ,1 I ~ , itlMd~ ( / ~\ I V Ir ~\ \~ \ \ \ \ - --! 1 I I ~ ~, _ a ~ i 4 . ~ i ;tlMtl~ - 11 ( \ \ I \I V / \I \\ \ 1\ \ \ \ \ \ 1 ~7 / ~ \ ---~1 I I i i ~ ~ i ~. ~ ' _~ ~tlMd% <11j1111 11 ~ I P' d ~~ ~~ j I ~ `~A~A ~ \VAA I I I I ~ ~' tip. ~ '.' I ~ ~ itlMtl~ Aa U4U~ E^SEMfNT 1 \ \ \ I / - ,A ~ i~c I \\ o\ \ \\ \ \ I v~ I I1Igr, I ,:. '' `\\\1 1\~I ~ WH / I ~\~`~ r\\\\1 r.~tl / )~ ~ I I ~ ~ ~~ ~tl t~xsPN~ ~ V1 \ 1 I N1Z I 1A" v ` VA1 VA / 1~ ~ / / k, / 1 r s~ o ' ~ \ ' ~ w ~ 1 1\\ \ \ 1 1 \ \ l u~ 0~ 1 1 ~o~ \ p\ ~ \\ \\ ~,`' ~ ~, / / ~ /~~ . ~ j `~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ , +x~- " ~ ~~sF•, - ~ '1 \v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Ni5'A, o \ \V \ V 1 VJ vA ~ 1 OG p 1 1 ~ ~~ ~,~v v ~~ AVVA \\\ _ -~ ~ `+>q ~ ' ~ ~~.. I~1 'iy ~ y~ i d ~ ~ - ~ r, r ~!_ _ ..\_ ~ _. - ._. ~ ~ \ s \\ \ 11 \1 \ 1 1 ~ ~ 1 1 w\ \` ~ \`\ \ ~ - ~ i // ~ /.. ~~~~'~ II li\~ '~ ~,~- ~~5~~1 1 \ -1 ~1 \\\\ \ I I \ ~ 1 11 ~\I~i o\\\~ Y \\\ I~ \ \ ~\ \ \\ \ I 1\ 1 1 ~~\\l 'Ui`~ \\\\ \ \ -'=g.'~ ~/~~~,r•~' 7 - >~-~Z ~~, ~--'~1 A ~ V 1 VA VVA \ \~ 1 1 ~t ~ \v~ 1 \~ ~ !, \~ ~ Fti,u ~y~;_a ~ ~; ~ _a ~ _ ~ ~ \~ ,~v 1~ \ VA \~ \ ~~' ~ ~~' 1 ~~aa o ~ ~.,g ~% i.~'', `~ ~ \~ • \ ~_ ~ ~\ 4\' m ' ~~ "~ \ ~N \7 '~. 1 \ ~,\\ ~ ~ ~\~ ~ 1, ,. 1 ~\1 ~ U 11,1 ~ ~~ ~~~£` \ '.~ e ~~+s\~so \~~\~ \ ~ \ ~ ~ ~ \ ` 1~ .1 °~Q\ \1\\\ ~ \ 1 1 1 111 `, ~\ ~ ~\~ \~~;~~~m ="~ ";~~~~. b°'~~ `~ \ ~~~ \ \\\°~~ 1 Na 6 1 1x.4• "s~11 X111111 ~ \ \ \ I ~~$,~ ~- 1 \ \ I ~ y~ - ~, t ~W \ \~ \ 1 \ ~ 1 r~ ~ ~ ~ ,, ~ ~~ ~~ '\; ~ '~~~, ~' ~~ '111111 \\~ ~;~ ~ ~"~Ic ~~ ~~ ©~ I ~. v,.~~A ' \~ A ^~.°~`'\, _. -- ~ ~~~~\V `~~`~ ~A~~ ~~ yr ~~3 ~ \ \ eTa /n I s ~~, ~ ~ i '~' \ \ \ ~~ `"`~ti,-Y ~~\ \\ ,,. ga \ " ` ~ ; r ~" 11 \\ uN \ \ 1 \ \ I I , °~ J ~ I; ~ 1 ' ,~~, ~~;,_, \ \ ~\,~ ~'~\ \\`\~, ~ \ \ ~~ _ ~>:~ ~ ~ 1 1 1 \ \ \ 1 1 Vim". ° . (®,. ~ \ ~ .~ \ a C j~ ~T~ \ ~ ~ \~ ~, e\ ~ ~ AAx ~ .4A8 P~ :y~ _ ~ , \ "~s 4 ~ \ $AN~ 1 ~ ~~ ~s~~/\' / /~ I \ `~\ \OOb~~a\\ ~ ir\~ ~\i /1 ~ { gA-~ ~~ SAF~~ ~A \~,f/ J'~ `~,~ 0 1\ J \ -- _ \ o ~ ; .. ~r ` ,,' as \ \ ~ `x \ ~ \\ I `a I ~ ``/.; ,^ of ~ ~'° € \ I 7/ /~ \` N~ ~/ \ 6 'C \ ~ \ \ ~ a ~ } A ~ __-- z _----~ ~ __-- ~ ~ - Q o g ,~ ~ $' ~ ~ `~J N 111 _ _ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ J ~ •` ~ + , ~ '' \ \ \ a W yam` ~ \\ \~~\\ ~\\ \ \ \ \ `.~ sJ\ ~~ ~, y'. 1 ~~ ~ a i ~ ~~, \ r`~n p~ ~-~JC~"$kd/ g+ / '~C,1 -a ~c,~ W '~ \ ` \ \\\ ~~~ ~~~\ \,1 \ \ \) ~ti'd `., .d'~'7ya~ ~• y~ ~~ g; ; ~ i 1. .. 's t~ ;, 1 ~~1 ~"Sw .J t~' /~ 7~~ }~~--d' (Y \ \\ \.\V \~\~`~~\ ~ J J \;S`~l~ ~,~~ , ~~ Q `i\`~.\ d ~~, S !Yi' t~ U'v. 5" ~ '',, use" ` / / ~ \\ \ / / w Zvi. 7~ ~O \ ~\.~ °~\`qG~a.~~~~\\\\t 1 J\ t~ I~ y ` ~\~~ I ,t! ~~ ~ ~~' ~ s' ~u r '~ V ~ VvV-a~ \~ ~~ \ \ V ~\ ~`~~ _ -~ 1 \ \ ` \ \\~ ~ 1 1 \ \;. ~ ~ v \ `' ~ ~ \`.\ \ \ ~ \ \~; ~, .: `' s ~{,; \, ~ ~ \~\ \I\I 'Any w~ \\ ~ ~ )~ ~' ®~ \ \1 \\\ ~~`~ \ \ \ \ \ I`~. $4, z ; .;~`' ,:,.t,,: \ \\ / ~ tJ1 \ 1 ` ~, 1V \ ~ 111 ~\ r "\I i-.~ ~•~ \ 1 \ It\\ \:~;~Sr~ _ \ ~ ~~ Vi'i`-, ~ 1 \ ~ ~p ~.~ / / a ` \ \ W a. 1 \, ~ ' o~; ~ I l o ~\ I ~~ ~ `~ ~ ~ :.,z ~ `.. u., ~' ~ ~ ~ ~~,~. '~~ 1 I I '~ 1 1 ~ '~" - \ ~ c d 7 \ i 4 O \ 4 I ~` \ \ 1' 4 (( 1 I i - 1 _ \ I ~ \ \ 1 -- W ~ ~ i \ 'u \ ~~ 1\ ~ \ 1 I '1 a ~. 1 ~ 1 i ~~ \ 1 ;. ;,~;. >-. '. 1;', ~ .;..... . i \ 1 `mot \ I - \ 1 ~~ 1 y9a^. 1 1 1 \ 't yr,~ Ft \ I: ~ \ \-~ i ter`-- ~ A .. cY :;;"`'"~ 7,;°' ,'i,>.'- ::\°- - ~--" \ ,. _, .._ ~/ o l0 61 1 , , ~ ~y' N \ \\ \ 1 / >' \ \ O cl) \ .- ' ~~ ~ a ~. 5 ~'~ I w k w ~' a ad \ \ •~- I ~.. 0 ~- \ / ~ f ~ \ \ --... ! / _ .~--'Htj- f' ~y~1~ ~ _ /5 e '4.~ry ~I~'~ .,"~'"~"'tn~\` 4~..~;<?aYl~n°'ua ifs '-,-, ~'~"~ aly. `,-. ~ \ ~A \ \~`z \ \ \ aa` r/s~..,''~^,,~v, vi ~Kar'~. .. S~~y.\ ~'~`--• N`~~+~_'"^".+er~rk~ r .,~ \ \\\ \ \ O~ ^-1-~.. ~rai._ %"cw r . s'~°,~-~-., ..~.., "'°•. r .;,.. \*~n ~,,,,^~ V7 l.tJ ` "'.,sue r'~ 1 ~ `'--'. \ _ ~'°'s ~.,. ~ d \1,` :1"" yid/i' ~>e~q..~~.;s. `:,»y -- --_ ,_'.•.~i1~'"'$.-.,-~ `:'.rte.-., ~`~°-~~"'`~. _ .`\~~9y, .••. \ \\\ YR \ \ 1 ,: I _ '~~~f ~'J. '.~p ~'.(f1; %,e'~;"S`.4~ `C"(Xc~~SC~~-,~.;y~.~` er,~X ~~ti„y ..= -...r.~ ~.. ` .\ [~\ \ pia..,,- ~~'~,'.-. _.+~; ~ : ~.'',~ "~`'s ~' ,O. W::- ~~~ ~ tlN. ,+,t,~ ,.cz --~~ "'"~. a~ ~:.`, •'~, \ \ \\ \ \ 1 ~~ T:~ tj~r `` -~-rte;-~ ;1r,1 Z=:~'~ ~'~,';tits?,.,,'r;:"r',~;.'•5~~?:~,'.`^,-. Y,~,~y~"r~t'''j&t`,, `~'.,\ ` \ °/ '/ J~~~ '... \ ;,'~:;: .;~~)'~i.?:v:;-sie'~e'^:'?' ," `R~ aa..5`.,.h :J°, ..':ut*., \\ ~ \ ~ sra '~i !~ 'srs 11 - s o~.,:.~... \ '~' ` ~~..1,•.:s~'cio,~_:'~A"~.,.,``'a'.--,., "' ..~.~x '"rar.;'~,`g"~Sh•• t,,, ,..~; ;~1 xr `:~.~~` \~ ---~ ~ '~,y~: V` -- „"t'11.~~ ~I,~\ p! Q^l \-~`. ~'i ':}~'i ... ,' C ~3~...". ~:-:.~X.f. ,3~5~ ~~,'~f}'.,+,~im' e~1~1'' ~ ~` aH'I ~`~\ \\ ~~ ~\ _ 3 ~ 0.. "~' _ `r~l,L~l \~~ '7u'-r ._~~ l _. ".v..---.aa "`~ '-:'^~'i:au~'~~~ ,,;l,~r .s+.-~,'. ~'t~~.. `~ ~`' ~ ~ ~ `~.. _ ~ ~, / `~ rs / iii "~~~°"'.~'c.. /~ _ -~-._-_..~ J""--1\` \ fi~ }~'~Si'~~~':`j.~'~= `' .'"-,.,b ~'c"r ...i,sy~,rad.. .~yc~`~.a. tfw'r:~~ ~ 'C" / ~ c e' !A;;~k:+";::'*" P~a: --- -~ ~~~='--~,.,,~~ '` .4.,, '~",,,, _„ 1. ~';,:,~'•,~ ~, ~S ~z;,,40~ ~~ ~~.t`.:.':,,v.,\, -w ,.., u~ .`'~-. ~. ~c-~~ y~~ •,~gb,;a;r'' ;~5 ;'~' ",,~-`, "--...... '_' ~"'~' _.. .~ ~ -_ ~~ a:; .,.,.~.i\</.r ~. ~-,. '`ro v,`,;i1~`, J,~Y ~b.'~ t,~u...: t ~ \' \~~` ~`'~ ~. it~ ~ ,:.,.. t./,S a:: ~~'~ Ss> rtr: ~~ \ '~ ~.. \.. .ky 1`{~~5?1~~y~'+.":.-:i`:~~1 ~`a~'4' \ .X. / `ua ~i~~, `~'a;`~k~'~~~'~l~y::i ~' E /_ , ~''.""`-•=: _ ~= .: ,~_-.... h..~>I'~.,s4~t ~ ~ - ~ ~ `", 1~~-.r, `"~`+~;~~"tt ~3pk$~~ "~~r. .:~,,. .i~~,_;n\; `~.~~~`~ -\„~` .~' / j se :"~;;'~%;~,,,.,.;:n~.>;,3>~c?~"! ^.''.i'y ~,r~ h,~'Ce~' +•• ~ ~ ~ "~a,.~~/• y ems' - , "^/- _ f r ~-...,_,,,, ~„ ~wsl: •` ~ ~,. \°t' ~" ;~;,,;:iy,:, °:'''y'":' ~ .~. '\,,~ ~~ ~ ~\. / ~ i~;2' ":fir. $~,31~",./i' t I ~ --r.._ ! ~~ ,,L~ ~"`-.,n ~' f \ ~~ ti?:t~~'~:.,,;°~'q`,.~1~~'~r.,~~u, ~ `.~ ~nu ~ ~s ~ >~; d~l•`"l 1 I Y` 1 1 ~'I ---,' _ ^-~' C"~•~, c'-...°rs", J \ , aa. '~^ . "~"iiiyj,l;r,;;~^.biye~i~,gt`:~:a~l .~~^C "ya ~``.. '44~.,~^Cy' B i° ~ A~%':u~:.};4r;'j. ',iar'"! ~ ii ~~ ~ ~ ~ --_. \ \ \ \ ~ .4,°EY:1},,.~" s~ s,! s'~., \ us _.. rirz~,~.: ,w ~.a,±',1 ";~, "•, Y ~, ~~., \ \- \ '" .i ~ ` ~. 7 - oavxozo~`crvn ~ ~ ~~ a C ~' ~ ~ g a _ 'IIE~A .L~ S~~N~QIS~2I ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ d- I ~ ~ $~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~$ ~ ` NO,L'I2I~'~'Z,I.I2I ~H,I, a oo ~ N F 3~~ &~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d. I ~ o ~ o ~~s ~ ~ ~ ^~ \ , . N ® \\~ , l ' ~ ~\ \~e \\ `fib \ / \~~ i ~II_________ l i ~b ~ t I ~ a ., . ~ .~ ~. \ ; ~ \ ~ ' ~ ~ \ ~ ~ ~ ~~' JA ~ \\\~ ~~\ `, ~~ ~ ~ \\ \\ \ \~ ~ ' - 8 \ \~:~~ v \, ~ ~\ \\ \\ \ % ~ ~s, ., kk\k~ L 1l ~\\\\zi 1, ttl ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' 1 ~5 ,. ~ +I, \ ~ ~ ~ ~~t ~t ~ 'i ~ ; ~ / / ~~ ~ -. __ } ~ blt~- ~ ~ ~ ~ 'sI ~ ~ >dn ~ 7. _ / ~ ~ ~ W ' ' ~ I ~ / Ir J Fir Z 1. ~ o. 7 ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~~ ~ t ~ ~ ~ r i ~I~. ~ a It. t ! ~ I~ I ~ Q~ ~ "~ ~~~ F. ~~ ~ _ . _ ~~~ / H Y ,~, 'N 5 ~~ ~ ~~~ \ tVY ~ /~ ' ~ \ •~ ~ ~~6L ~Y' `ham ~~ ~~ gA $ m°_ ~~~se$ 7 ~ ~~n~ I ~~~,~ ~ ri~ ; ~: ~ ~~ I~~ ~~ ~ fl' N ~ ~ u~ x ~ ~ ~ I~ ~ -~ , ~ S' R n l ~ 5 :,; ~? ~~' ' - ~ ~ ' ~~ ~ ~~ ~ I~ ~ } ~~ ~, ~r ~ . ~ ` ,~~ "t o ~~'l ~..-.~ 6 ~`r~~t ~~ 1~. r ~ _ '~ ~iL1 4t ~ ~~~ ~ ~ c ~ ~ W ~~, azaz a ~ ~~ ~~^ W~za v ~ _~~ a NAG ~ 1 ~ ~~ \1 ~ j ~ ~~ ~~'~ ll ~`' ~Nk'11~41611N1~a a \~~\\~~ i \"`~ 1 \ \ \~I III 1~ ~~ / ~, `~ ~ ~ 1~ A ~~ \ V A V ~ ~ I ~ x-rs \\~ ` \ C \\\ ~ \\\ "~ ~\ I 1 ~~~ ,,, N \~ r, ~, Z? ~ ~ i ~,. ,- ~ ~ ti ' ~~i ~~ ,: ~ I ~\ ~; } ~~\ .`~ \\ \\ r% I"~ i Oki f \ 1 ~. ~'" ~ \ . t ~ ti ~I 'yyl ~ ~~ !:al\ r ~ a ~,,~~ ~ ''~A 1~ t r ~ i c d '. \ ,a s 3a ~ , 1 ~ r~ t a k~\ 3 t x i4 ~ 41 5 t / ~ ~ J/ ~° i ,, e ~: /° ~ ~~ ~~ ~ 0 ~~ ~~ i ~ ~~ ~~ ~ \\ U / }~~ l~ \ U +~ ~` 1 ~ ~,1 ~r ~ ~6 r~~~ ~.!?k _; r ~ \~ ` \ ~, 1~~: I J ~ s \ '' ~ .ry y ~ < ~ \ ~r \~1 0 1 Rr \ 4' rs"r`^ ' ` ~ ~u nem ~,7 \ ~~ ~f \ $s ~~ 4 '~`~v~, ~~~~~ _ 1 ~1~ - \\ / 4 \ n ~r L9 i ~ 1 ~ // j ~ ~~ ti ~\ ~ ~ \ ~C\~~FF\ ~c v1 ` to u ~ rho Ft ~;. ~~~'t ~'. ~\ t ~ ~ ~ /tit ~ ~ \ / / t ~ ~~oo ~,,~ k2. `~~ ~ ,\ / c~ e a 1 ~ 1`~ ~ ~ ~ is ~ \ ~ „~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ \¢\"~... '' i9~ a ~o v ~ \' ~ ~~~ ~\ ~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ tit ~~ / ~ ~ ~~~~ ~~~~, i ~ ~~~~ ~. ~~~~ ~ ~~ \\ ~ \ ~ J \\ / /~..~\~c~~C ~ SOS ~ ~ \\ \\ ~\ ~\\ I \/\ ~ //// ~\\~~ /y / peso, '~y "~ \ ~ I \~ ~ R t` ~ ~ \ i ~ ~ ~ u O'~J~b ~- O, u u s F" o~ &o ~~ ~ 2 F" s ~ 3 ~ &o ~~o ~Naz ~~~ g ~ ~~~ ~ ~ I ° ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ gg ~ V 8 _-~ a~_z M Oz ~~ ~JJ O N =Fa v o y~ \, \\, \ \\ ~~ L6 ; ~ - gl ~S ; `\~~ \ \\ `\\ / X \ \ 11\ \, \\ \~ ~;p~'~'~II~I~gNq? 9 ~ 1 \ \\ flflflp999p~~1 rr g ~ \ r ,: / t CL egg ~ \\ \ \\ ~ :/ Feo ~~ ~~~ ~ i \ i_r.:;0 _ \» ~ _~ ...\~\\ \\~~11` \\ \ 1 ~' Lure?"e'`, qi~~~ ~y-. \\ I I ~Iz , \\ \\~.., \\ ~ ~ `. 0 8 ~ ~F 2s¢ Y. ~ \\\ \ \~\ \ \ \ O ~ ~~ EF J ~, \ \ \ h \ \`~ 8 \ ~~ \\~~ , \\ ~~ 0 3ID ~Km° ~> j z~~ .' ~~6, \ /~ ~ \_c ~\\\ "tom t // ~b ~ \'~ I ask \_ 'S\\ r., _ ~, A L~~ ~ A _. \ \\ \ \ \ I e g#g# ~ , a ~ - _._. o I._ , ' :, w a \ v~ \ 1 \ 1 r.. -, ~= ~ o \ ~ ~ ~ ;,2., J~ \ I 1 r,. ~ 3 v~ -G : `~ , ~ , 1 1 ,. , 1 \ \~ ;n' , >~ ~: ~; 1 1 \ 5~ . , _\ .. ~ ~~ ' ~ 1 \ ' , ii:~~w1 ~' I yl ° ~° ~ ~ n ~ 3. ..'h~ ~_ `` ~\\ \ ~~_, ~,~'a\ ,r ~-,\ ~11 I\ \ 1 e I; ~ W y ~~ 1 + II; ~, _ ~yj u~ ad'9 ~' ~ # ,\~ \~ \\\ W '\ \ ~1 11 1 \ / ~~~ 1 ~.~; ~Irj `.:..,.1~ ` - \I.~ E5~ VS-. ~k~'.~x ~' ~ ~g x'1° _ '\I \\\ ~ j \\\\ + 1 11 i \ 1 e s~ 1141 l .'I7Q I~. 1 ~'(, ° o ~~~ .; ,:' <~<i~ r ~ \~\~ \'(y\/~!~ \ \\ ~ \\ \ 'yil 11\\ \ 1 e a 6.. 1 ' ~ ~'qW: i'.~g .k,~ ~ .. 3 ... \ `A \~^ \\ _ •- \ \ 3 601 ~ \ 1 1 I \ ~, lNl~b qg w~' •~.. 1 y~ \\ ~_- \ p \ i 1 v". I \ -Ir• iS~ ' Z :~ ~" 1 1 IIyy ~fi I O _ 1 1 y \\ JI ~ I \ \ _ 1'.: 6 \ ~. r7\ I - \ I'. I V 1 \ - '~ \ \1 g -. ., _ ~ I y I,' .F., 1 i \ v ..... _ ,-t-:' / -.. ____ \'\\ ~_`f0_ / \\ €m~SS ~1\ I j 1 \ \ \ ;~` `1 \~ t , , \ I 1 ~:1 -~ \ / b 4433 99 / r~E i ~ =/~~ \ ~ --~.- < \ / p 1'. I rc tl~ ' 'I ~ ice;, j'~~ ~ ,`;' ~ \ \ I \ ~. F6' \\ \ ~\~~ i / '/Y/,. ~ ~: ~. 1 ~ ~~ "' . i1tlMY1 ~ .1~ ' ."~~ i.i ASl~y,%'i~;,; :.. ,,, :. ~"1 +il`"a \ \ \\ t \~\ 3\ \\ ~1 /~/ ~ q1 VM p5 vA. N/l ~ a ~ \r~~\ I ~ y \\ \ l ;~ •~ -~ ' ~' ~~ tea? '~ S>S~''~ ~ ''~ \ ~ \ `' '~ ~1~~ \\~~1 O;-% ~' \\~ `` \\ ti ~,. ~ T r ~, fir "~. 3 \, . \ % i ~ i ~ \ .~,', ~ ~- gg ;-:: ..;. a 3 ~ ~' 1 6 ~! ~. 6 \ a~ i "\ ~' '1. r 6 I \ ~ 1 ~~' t ''. ~~a~b:,, - ~ Y ~ - s .,a:~ . ~ ~I 1 ` ~=... \ ~.Q . m - r -:, 6 ~i, -~'~i ~• ::{:` ~„ 3'. ii " 1 ,~ . ~~_. °.a V 1'. ib ~' _, l _ - ~` ~\ . .modd I I~. ~` ~~ ~ \ ~' _ ~\ ~,;;':;. ~:\ t ~,~._,_~. ~. ,~ Y ., ~>` \ ~ ` ; ~~+ \ ~~ wy$ ~ V Q ~~ . @~ / I \~ ,w~. \ I 1 s~,~ ~ ~ - 0'~s ~~\ ~\ iz.~. cq .uhf'., a ~ ~, 1 I / ~~ I \ \~\vb '~~(~:~e~^.b1.: .f~.~ ~' \~~ ~.r ~~"~'•,~~1, ~f~~~~'.' ~"b~ 1 ~; Piy~ 1\ JfA L / ~~ ~vf`~ „wd\ ~~ ~"'~i:;,. ~, ...? .. \~ \\ ~~';- :. '.P\' vi E.25~ ` ~ ~'3 a `~ ~01?~ ~_ Y\ ~ ~ ~ sr . ~\~~~c .~, \, \\ ,/ to ,y,,:~ ~ ~{ _ _ . - ~ ~ ~~ ~j / A O ~•` ~/ i 4y ' ~~ !.•~ ~\O~`i::'x:: :."•~';;%'`~,}:~:. "\;"' ~b~ ... ~v_c. d ~."• .r.~iyi pV ~p~sj ~~ A~~~/ '~ ~ \~ \~` p '. ~. `/ ~ BIM d \\ ~\ ~..,;. ~ / v', ~, ~,~~t~,. ,;;:: \'r~;;: ~ ~ ~b ~ ~ 5 g ~p+~ 4 y ~ k3 ~g~yf y gg3 g 'r ~ y y l V ~', 'h","~> :'F-`~:~i°:`:~k+rr\+': ,~ /J p 6 p ~ ~ 7 8 3 ~ 9 3 t ; ~ i ~ ~ it ~ ~ ~ d '6 \ ,, .;,~{o"?:i ;."' .L`:, .' ~. / ~~;b g 666 ££ S ~\ O ':bls'~:\iy'ty S~1 F. :G: %;i ~~`,.i ~..~' ~~' _~ L $ y Q$ 3 q ~ R a p$ y d ~ s \ 4.fp",..4 L"';tj ,si..e}r~ ~'"•»? f0..~~ ~c^ b 4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ F, ~ 2 ~ ~ F ~' ~ II ~ $ ~ 5 Bw 9 ~ Sf ~ ~ N 9 & ~ ~ ~\ O .ia '~'ti F '2 ~`0 / bb e R 'd .:. "J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 # ~` i ~ i E ~ ~ B ~ Q p (,':,`'.~ YI 1. s ~ ~t'S ~~~~;r:`~P'~ ~~w ~ •!~ ~ . ,y,.,°.,~.x ~/ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Lf ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ n 6 ~ ~ °6 C 6 S S g P<` ~ qF / \ ~ ~e ~(1 ~}d~{`~F'S~1 jXX~s m~s'i9 ''"~:1~ q \ 7 vl~m I I ~ ~ q ~ I c ~ ~ I I I IIII I I I I ' .'~ \\ , O~~\'\`~:Ks~€.~~;a:j.,-j4'A`:•ra ~~ ~ ~~~ I I I 1 s a ~ e s K I~ s l ~' d e r €~ e E /, \ $ ~ . ~~.~ ~~.• ...•.~,._'"~/,i~~;;~ __ ~E< ~ A I I I I 9 2 l i k~ 6~ ~ 3 I~ Z I I I I I I I I ~ / ri \\\\ O/ ~sv. q~~,~,6b'~'~~~;+i 2: -~;~\ If ~ ~ ~ ~ ; .~. I I +~ s a®®®I I~ ®e EB3 ~ I g (' <o I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ° ~ ~\ ~\ _' ~,~~1^';`4`"s ~`,,, ~ I 'II as ~Ia s~ ~s' ~~~ r~N'~ €~ ~ ® \\ \ e Oe\.~\~;'''N`; ~~~'~ ~ \ b I III x < ~ a' 't' `v, ' \~ ~ 1 1 i 1 1 3 a Ile E~ ~ ~ t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (~ a' \" ~~ Y ~ ~~ \'s \,'r ~ a,~r',..' '~ \ ~ \ \ \ \ ~\e1\\ \i: ~ :''t~\~ \ \, S b w 1 ~ y ~ w OQVNO'I00 "IItlA zl~n s~ s~~N~aIS~I NOPIw'I2IFT~-Z.LI2i ~H,L __--__-- ._._.-- :_-- ocv+s ~ a ~ ~ ~ x: Z1~n ~~ s~3~1~ ~H~ ~ ~ ~g o _-__-.- ~-'"" ~~ ~ ~~ d ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~o ~.< '`~~~~` o~°~ 3 ~~ ~~~ o ~ ~S~ ~~ ~w~ ~~. ~ ~~s. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ W~ ~~ ~ ~~~ o ~ =~` --...r-- E'~ 43 ~a ~>~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~" $x .. ~a '. >' a - ,'~r ~ ~~a~, ~£~ ~ ~~~ ~ ?~ b ~d iL~S rt ffi' ~ ~` ~~ ~•oy $ V " ~ ~ aka ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~~~ s ~ e Nr yy~~ g} a ~~~ ~ ~~ WW ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~¢ ti~ ~~~ ~~ ~ w~~ ~ ~ ~ffi b~~i ~?j/a ~ 'S sE ~5di~a -'1''` ~$ ~:. ~ ~ y 5 e : Rb~ ~ a 3 $~ E y b ~~ ~ tt ~bl-- J 4 A N Qa ~° ~~ ~o gW ~~ ~~ OJ ~a ~~ - W :- -`" ~ = c cW u a_° .- - J ^~ z~ ~~~~, ;Iw~~z g~ ~ i ~ n ~S z ` ~i~ ,, , z ~W 9. ~~yJ ~& k~ !. F- 6 6~ F' ;~ z h L O ^J' ~ S E 8 0` ~ByY~ 4 ~, d e a Z 9 ~~{{ •~ ~ 9ve N GP *'~ S S'. ~ 1N g a 6 S °~j i •WN ~~S g a Lr 1y ~w '~~V°ggq 2t;~$ Z~ ~ "yg ~t { fir, ~~ ~ b y~a b ~ ~~ ~ -~~j ~~ ~ ~~ ~~~~~ b ~,~ ~.. e 9 $ , A b .~ 9y ~ C ~ k b ~" ~ m ~F ~~~ ~~ g ~ L L ~ ~~~ `~ a§ ~ ~~ ~ xy y; ~~ a `y 85 # ~ 5~ ~ N g s ~~~e ~ps, `' °y 8 ` E ~$ ~5$~ ~ :f ~ g- 1~ 8~ ~-= `1 ,~ ~ 4 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o~ E g x~ ~~ ~; ~~ tlsrs~~y~'~.. ~~~~x7 d~ _--- b {g Q ~® m Ji~q 0'".Ls/t 1 ~tF oavao-ro~'~rvn ~ ~ ~Z O w~ ~~ a ~~ ~ ~~ ~ p ~ ~. N 'II~~ ,I.~' S~~N~QIS~ ~ ° o ~ s $ ~ (~ ~m° as ~~~ ~ ~ ~~~o ~ o ~ W ~ ~ o ~ ~z ~ z. ~ Q _ Nos-rx~~-zar.ix ~xz ~ ~ ~°° A d., I ~ ~~~ ~&~ y~ ~~b~ ~~°~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ W ~ b x n~u ~ n I ... I ~~~) ° q ~~q ~~ ~ ~, ~ wr ~~ e~" " . t, 5~s" I „ ~ ~~ N ~ .ol ~ O O ~ i i s~ a .re ~~~ 3 ~ ~ S x ~a> ~J.~ ~ ~~~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~d~€ ~ ~E~ ~ ~~ : ~ 66~f ~ M h ~~g~"~ ~b ~ ~ ~~~a~ a ~ ~` J `~ as e 6 > ~~~ gg ~ ~ ~$ ~ ~~~~ ~ J 8 W ~ ~i a ~~~~~s ~ "~~~ e~~~~5 ~ ~g~ ~~ ~~~~~s~<~~~_ J N K 1 n nn yq4 J~g ~ ~~~ Y~~§ J g~ ~ e ~ ~~o~ Z§ " d2 ~ 0 ~. ~ a ~ ~ ~~Q ~~ ~ ~ ~~J~ ~ ~ b~ ~°~Q~~y3~ ~ ~a~~~~~~nr~a~s~ . NAiM n n d r s U I ,MOB w„Wlww .Wr ~ Z ~~/~~~;V~~.,'i ~i r iii?Y~>~~V~v `~~%~ ji ~ \~ i~rr~/`1' ~ ~ ~ \~i\ii'T ~ i ~ F ~ S~T~yT ~~y ~G\\~T\~~T ~;~~itiT~~i~ ~~,1~ '~ ~~ ;~f~4j-~rf ~~1 ~'\\\\\\ ~ ~ f' ~rl,~ r " ~_ f i-1 ~ ~~ ~~~~ F r- J t L 0 ~\ 7~ - \ ~ / / ~ \ \ \ 3 W $~~ ~ ~ a ~ K ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~ ~ ~pg~ ~ ~~ ~ W o ~ fag .:g;~ ~8 ~•. ~~ 4 ~ F ~ , ~ / ~~ &y ;~ H W ~ b~~~oZ~ f~. ~ lS J ~a Q Z r ~ ~ I ~• a 'L ' ~ ~g ... W~ ~ ~ ~ wlw.o~ ~ E •~ ii ea$ ~~~ 8 g~ ~ = i/~~~~/\ f k~~~ ui~~ :~~~ Bg ~~~~ r f ~{ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ Sm ,amp s$ ~ d ~ e ss ~~5 S fi y~ 'i ~ n ~ ~~S® r5$. F8 .szN ~ .m i ~ $~ I S ~ s ~g~ ~.. . ,. _ ',.1~, o 8& a i J § ~ s Z Q wa ~ 5, F O ~ a 0 ~ ~~" a F- 4 a„ °g _ x~~e - ._ ' Se g ~ z t 6 „ ~ ~ ~ ~ fd4) W °°p .C F ~ rv d ~~ ~°w .el ~ . ~ ~~ \~h ~ fi L4 6 N ~ c '< ~ ~ ~~s&~~ a~ ' i~~,JJ a~ ~ Y/11 H/ d QQ g ~~~~ ~ -.~~ < d~ a ~ ~ ~S~~ly€ ~ o ~1~C qu°wP°qw3 ~ ~<Ym3~ t~~ ,e ,n .e .m g a s ~ ~' me=ro %VW .0-,1 0 h ~ _-_ __. - b b O~ gg •- N 9 + a 'M1- ~ v a8~88 R ' \ N ~ I '.. ~ N H ~~ ~I .IX-,L ~I w q n~ `_ ~-- w 0 .~r ~- ~' ~~ o , '.I d4l .8 ~_ 7 Z O U K O U' Z O U H, ~„ ~~ U~ Z 0 ' F U w Z I ~~~~~ b 0 g~ ~ ' ag~€ ~ nN ~~° ~ ~ ,q o ~I O O ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ z ~ ~ ~ e w 5 ~ ~eb b a o Z m ~ ^ " ~ a ~ U 7~ ~ v~~ Q 0§ ~t ~ ~ V U ~~ / X y °' k3 _w ,, N / O ~ S ~ ~ N.f .. ~~ ~., ~ / VO •au °ad9r/I /L .Zl ~\yi ~~ ~ -^/ ', / ~ I ~~~. ~! I \~\ ~~ dp E~ >s ~~ ~~ 3~ ~~ ~~ ~ iiiZ l ~ i ~ 2 .J ~ , yy { 0d Z_ z ~ o ~ W N m U F- Z ~' u ,. w w ~~~.~ ~ J € ~ se U ~~ ,01 04ti3wX%~0033tl IIWWY '(Lh war~.0 u. ',01 Id~n ;, B00 00 ~ w ~~~ ~-I ~ ~~ ~~~N ~d3,Nl ~~dYw ~~ ~ Z b ys3 Yy S~~ =SkS 3b F~~ ~~i@~ K Yab ~b ~ ~ 3u~ ~ Q Z, ~~ DO d ~ ~ - 21 I~„tl ~ ~ $Y~ ~~.R~ ~~ o ~ I I I ~a ~§~~ a~~~~~ 0 ' ~ ~ ~z/ic w a a. t ~ F ~ r, w J UI ? x w ~ a `- N Z g 5Vt J Q _ N Q °1 ~ ~B x~ n =~ m H / ~ U )'I / a . ~~ ~ N k ,~ ~ awns a ~ N~ ~:-- - a ~ ~ . : ~,~.. I ~ I « CV ~ 831wA N (V ~~ ~~~~~€ ~~ g ~~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~= a~~j " ~"~ ~ ~~~~ ~~ a a ~ 5~ ~gs ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~a a~~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ so I~.a .''' \.~'il \ ~~ggg 3 `a a ~ a" I I~o.oll ~ ~ ~g -~ ~~ _ P~ ~~ f f +° f f ~o I ~~_ ~ ~ ~~~n ~3z ~ ~ xrW zvn ,o-,c sworn ,r ao ,c•,z',I ~ ~ ~ 3 6 ,ZI Niw ,0-,Z JO NOLLYNIBW00 NIW ,0-.Z ~I~Iglq~~1413~? ~ ~ ~~I-IE~h~llz ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ 6~~ J 0 x ... t ~H b o ~. z N IN Q3w33MOS ,i/C a3iovdwoi wnwNlw . i a~ ~ t t ~ Y ~ ~~g ouvuuZO~ 1rvn ~ ~ Z O G 6 = c o ~ ` ~ " ~ o `? ~ w z ~ 'IIF~A ,I.~ S~~i~I~QIS~I ~ ° ~ ~ ~ ~ d- J ~ ~ s~ ~~~ ~a~ ~~~~ ~b~ ~ ~ _ ~ u ~ ~ ~~ °o ~ ~ NO,L'I~~'Z,I,I2I ~H.L ~ ~ ~o~ = d„ I ~ s~° ~~` ~~ ~ x ~~~~ {~- ~ ~ ~ ~ oz Z E'~~° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~i ~ '~7'~F~ J <Z ®o t-i r<~5o~ J ~ r~.{: ins". ''~"~'''s';.;z, `o ( ~~~ ,`,; :,~j- iyti;~: ,~..<:, M 'ONpp ~_ -T w w a ~ ~ ~ .. N ~~~~~~~~~~ ss;,&rssa<ss&&e iS&& - ~ -" `~"<."y, j~l' I O z c,o zD ~o ~ ° w z ,;f ~:~`" ,,t z °::l=v'' - `:v I K a z a> a °1 w o s w > ~ iS ~'('::~ 1;'if-:, M1^t?s : ~. .h.:, ~ f'.t 1~ N 6 O y~ m O g t.' .yt , y p ''S~`7 z m O ~I~~,' .J ~~ Q~ ~ Q ~ ~ O O O ~'i ~ fl.~ t'2.. I N ~ .-'f{ aq~ g ~~ ~ ~9iNR E{ ~5 "}. ~ C9Q (9w w0 id ~ xm ~A [Yi Nh,q.~ I O U' w s'~t'~ i`tii~lic~' ' (.' I I I z z z z x z a rc o ~ o iri' Via.' =1Fs ~. `;:'i'e "!':_ `. I I F w F w ' w - w O c7 O N O y O ..GPI? ...),. :i;.-: _' I s i- ~- a g a w a w '%S'jF 'j.a'L',. '1:~;:,:;•u '?"r''igi ':dyo7.. ' 11 y N m w m '° °° p p O O w O w o tS:ir '~+~. I O O O O tt rc a s a m w ~, ~!,y^ ~~ ~; 'u5F azd a ar- ar- a it I #$ Q' ~' I s,'1 ~" r 3 t~ uu .:; ": A r I f X I ;~ I AS; >~ I 5 E T. R 'a Y I yy', 1 ,I a O ~ ''k~ W ~: II I C ~~ tr. ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I o 0 _~- I: o~~~~ '~ I ~ _ ~ I ~ F ~ ~ m~ II I 1 ~ ~ °w~<a 8~ '~ ~ II I i O ~ m<ri~c? 1 I F z Q ~z O ~a 1 ti z ~ O ~qp _ Z 5 O- _ I a_ I w 3 0 I wp ~gp ~»~i p III o m O~ O a O z i u ww~_ao ~. ~'E. S ~py@ 5aE '~~.::::', ~''.'. ~~~ I c7 ~ cn qa ~ amc~ g XFa~ ~ 8~ `^"~$.: i~;2 ~i „+i, ;. 1I i = O o O O a a o caiO~°1 .a ~:,r& :1 ~ l%' ~ h x r 'g K'~ E x~ I o k a 3 .,,:~. v~ 'gg O O O a k a o gg~ 6 O , I v S - O a4 rc a O O O ,Q I - ii`': z z - ~ pp a ~ ~ u~ a m ~ r ul N N m ..i S I 9 J g 6 ~y K I 0 I 7 ' 3 g G f3~S~7ta~~~~t ~ g ;fi,; '~:r::,.:;~?. ;~$ ~ i ~ + + o + + + + + `~w~a o // y ~ ow a v O z S, ~`.Y," W `~ a g xa 1 _ r.'rv Z S ~ r 1 F x za ~F O J O 00 ® w0 O r w @ :'''if';.. n I o < xx 'e`3~o~~3 J5~ 3~a~ ~ $ 00 0 0 /~ ,~>~ ^ ~. 4y ,\ / 1 \ ~ :;y~ I ~ ' ~'. ~I ~ \ ~': :jt~;, ~'~' i(,j„ ,, .;. l %:..: 1~ 0 1 o" 1 ~ ICI I / a Yr I O II 1 ~ -~i ._ _- ~ ~}3 ~~r f F ~ ~ 1111 II ` ~ ~~ _ ~ 1 ~ 1 ; ~ ® ,, ~ ~ 11 ', ~ A ~~ '~ ~ 1 / - i ~ ~~ ~ , ~ _..~ l ~ I __ i ,. i ..:: ~ ,.,.. 1 ~ ) ,..:: nI ; `` ~' y~S i i.,.. .. I !1~ l ` ~ `~ ~ , 1 _ ' •\` ` ~ I ~.~ i,.': r.... ... I l I ' ~ ~' S.. ~~ ~ I ~ ~ a;.1,:. ~ r 1 ~ o ~ ~ ',1 / ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~~ _ -~ ~ '1, ~,t ~ %~ ~ ~ ,; ,~ _ , !1 ~ ~ 111, I ' N _ Y l f - I `~ i N. •. ~. e `~J r ~ 4 7 o~ Lt o ~ I b`e ~~ I ~ I // ~ I '.~ ~' ® 8 ~... i 90D dOD rOQDr ' i j;6 I I 1.:'~.,: 8, abD ~ y I /, l / ~ i i ~ \~~ /~ ~ ~~ ~ n ~ I ~'~'` // Ili / ~ ~ ~~ /(/ o ',. ' ice` I . O / /~ . ~, I ,n,• - m - ~ :;: I 'ii'' \\. _. ., _ ._ \. ,,;,, . \ i;/ I ~ `~. o ~ ~ ;; , '~ 0 \ \ ~ ~ Cr: ;H ~ I \ ~ ...,, \ j?~ \ 2;;.: .. ~ ~ .~., ., :'.;:~u ~iC' :`m ' \; ,'n~+. ~,•:, '~, x, !> ,.Y , ...,SSN ~ ~~ ,.;. ..\ 1 `, :'~ is \ +,., ; ate . ~. . \ ..;~~.. ; ~1 /, ,~ i~;: q . , a I '`'.i% I \ il. ~~. \~. <.., (' ~. ~. ,;,}„ 4nd' I 0 [i"i ~'. {. - I • t'r ~~ \ s. t 1 :;,. ;ry< ,, lk;~. ~~ . ~. I ~' 0 I \~o i ~ . ;~ ~' I ,.. ~' ) °~W . ~~ ~ 'w ,. , d _d,~.....r,,:, , ~~ i y.. .\ r:; ' ' ~" .'r- ~ ~ '~ ' i ~ .. ,. / t~: F ~~,. ~:~' ,'N 'I ~/ ,/' ~ .~ r.,~... 1 i'i . i •~~~~ ~i.. ?~5~: I _ o rr~ . ,® \~ ~.. ~l o - IF.r' `~.l. {('f~°~ •\ :.,rt.: . fi^ k" 1 \ ;F~, ~^r.,;: I',` S'•s..; .o '' ~4 I 1 \ ~~.. ^,i ~\ I' \~~ ,`~., ~f ~\ o s _ I 1 •~`~ ©:i l \ \\ \~\ ~i'~ ~( \\ el'1 \ .. \ 1 . O O ~ ~\ ,, , \ 1 „}, '. 4. I ~'~.,t 0 ~ ~ , ~ \, ~\ Q rt I .x. N~_ ~a, :~i~, I \'. _ \ \ ~.:fi ~a','. , 0 -- ~ ..t: - - ~ - ~ - b ____-- _~J__ -- ,l .. , ,';,> - - - \'~. ~\ - ~.< - - .. \ , - - I - - ~ '~ - O .' - I `: i ~ ~ \ ~ ~ '~ \ \ ~;: ' ~ ~ ~~ J ~ ' ~~ ~ I \ ~ ~ ~~ oavuozoo"rrvn ~ ~ z O ~°~ ~ s ~~ ~~~~ ~ 3 s ~t~~y'~syo NOrL'I2I~'~ Z.I,RI ~HrL ~ ~ ~ °> o ~ I ~ ~s~ ~~~ ~ ~~ s ~~~ a g g ~ ~ ~ r ., _._- e a s r ~ ~ s s s I ~ '~ 1 , <<- ~ ~ ~ ~ o0 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ 4. 1 ~~~ ~ ~ a~a o ~~ F ~ ~l t ~ S ~ I _.~ 0 I~ ~~ ~~ a° dad ugh ~ Q Q t I~y° I~E 9~! ~Id' Vwjp °~ ~mm ~[ o o IE _ ~~ _ __ ~ ~ ~ ~ ° I~O~ a~R -,~ I ~w~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ > ~ > ~i o ^ o m ~_ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ^~ ^ ~ % i m „~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I H ® 8 ~' n 8 B 10VdW00 ~ 131tlA ~ 10tldW00 10VdW00 I 131tlA lOVdW00 ~I I 131VA ~ lOtldW00 I lOVdW00 of ~~, fTl of iu 131VA 10VdW00 131tlA 10tldW00 ® 131tlA w 10VdW00 131tlA 10tldW00 ? I ~ ~ I 131tlA vaai lOVdW00 I 131tlA 10tldW00 O I I e O~ z ~ r7 III J I p III~~~II p~ 131tlA z ~ 10tldW00 ~ o ec 131tlA I'm~ 10VdW00 ] > I 131VA a a o I _ 10VdW00 .• ,i~ m n e ro ~ 131tlA lOVdW00 10tldW00 °°~ W lOVdW00 o ~o u ~, m of . u 0313 ~ "~ du '~ au i. ' dAl ~ .o-,a~ .o-.rz .o-,ei n n 10tldW00 ~ nl u,~ o ~ ~ « 10VdW00 I lOtldW00 ~ ~ C' 10VdW00 U U U p p j > > G ~ ~ ~ ~, of IO I 0 0 0 .m~ 10tldW00 lOVdW00 0 10VdW00 lOtldW00 131tlA m 10tldW00 lOVdW00 p o~ f p C.1 n pl rp 131VA 131VA III 131VA 10tldW00 (Ipl n n ~ o 10tldW00 ~ ~ > ~ Q 3 n m ma o ~^ J ~ w N fo 1 ®\\~ ~p i ®\ r I U U Q Q a a ~ ~ 0 0 U U .;~~~ oavuozoo'~ivn ~ ~ z 0 ~~ ._..~ -- o ~~ = ~~a~ ~ o ~ ~ ' ~ $ $ { -- _~ ~ a ° ~JO ZI~A.I.~S~~i~i~QIS32I ~ o~~~ ~ ( ~$° ~~~ ~~~ 6~~~ ~b~s ~ 0 3 ~ _ " s _ L `~I ~ ~~,~ ~ g ~t~~y S,`O i~iO,L'RI~'~'Z.I,RI ~H.I, ~ ~ A o ~ d- I ~s~ ~~s ~" t;~ BAs rig ~o ~ ~CC ~C ~~ (6` ~ ~ ~ O H A 4° F I I/ T___-_______________~ v~iN 3w~3 ago^ a `~o ~o ~ ~ ~~ 4ao "~°m w~om w °=~o ~ ~ m v j O N ^ ___ m __ __ __ I f ' tom, t, ~ ~, ~ t, t, ~ I > > > ~ I /I / i ~ I j ~ ^ ~~ ~ m o I >~ m / I H ~ ~ 8 ~' n I I ~ R B 8 10tldW00 ~ I 131VA' 10VdW00 " 10VdW00 ~ I 10tldW00 0 o I I - I 131tlA 131tlA 10tldW00 ~ I 10tldW00 I pl ,u m ~ I o ~Ilf I 131HA 10VdW00 ~ 10tldW00~ 10tldW00 p ~ 131tlA w 10tldW00 I 10tldW00 10tldW00 I ' U ~8 I 131tlA N 10tldW00 I N I10VdW00 10VdW00 I I of z in ~ ul (a i ---~ 131VA z ~ 10VdW00 ~ 'I 10tldW00 10tldW00 I I a Ynd p I 131tlA Q a a 110tldW00 ,q ~ I o_ro~ 131tlA lOVdW00 , ~10tldW00 ,i~ lOVdW00 I I a o I u ~ of , u 0313 ~~ ` du du 'L ail I ,0-,Bt ,0-,~L .0-,84 n I 10tldW00 I ~ ni ~ f~ \ H ^ 10VdW00~ ~ I I \ 10VdW00~ p I10tldW00 I I a ¢ a ~ u \ a O a Q o~ to I ~, v v v m~ 10tldW00 10tldW00 \ n .. I I10VdW00 10tldW00 \ I .131tlA m I ~10VdW00 10VdW00 \ \ o of f o p r~] fo ~ \ \ 131VA I I ~ I I ~ \ 131VA ( I I I ~ n n ~ a fo i \ a ~ ~ I ~ ~ i \ \ ~48E r~ €~Bo ~ I \~\\ 9 , ~ I ~ \ i ~~8s ie9 ~ I in i ~ i ~~a, ~ ~ I ~ \ Ig ( I . \ [7I 10tldW00 " fu I ~ ~~e ~ I ~ \ Ilotldwoo I ~ ->zll I \ I ~ \ w °•~ I iu ,,, \ o~,. I o - ~ r ~~ ~_w b~a.,~ ,~ oy s ~ G~ ~~J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ,~ ~~ ~ ~~s zren Z~ s~~N~aTS~x ~ ~ 0 00 N ~ ~~~ ~w~ ~~~ ~~~ x _~~~ uoz-rx~~~zzYx ~x~. ~ ~ ~ ~ < A ~d- ~ ~s~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ Q ~o L r _ .~-_ i I 4 n o I I d p ~ 0 ~ ~B, _ , I I ~~8~ I a ~ f 4B~ o _ I ! ! - ~€8 I 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ti ~r€~ 4 ~ ^~^~® w~ ® - _ I ' ~ 1 ~ - ® ~ ~ ~ ~ / N ~ O N I o ~~ ~ ~ ~N ~ ~ ~ m~ au . l ~ ~ i - i I t / e 8 w lovdwoo _ ~ ^ N Lwdwoo ~ / II I I f II I ^I I I -- ~ ~ Y iowdwoo ~ o - ~J_._. I z iu ~ n Ymd ~ f 1 ~ I) I~~_ ~ I 4 I I 13lVAOl am~ro IOVdW00 1 N - N I ` m I w,~l 11 1 ® 131Vn lOtldW00 I ~ ~ ~ I ` I ~ lOVdWdO ~ ~ ! ~ / I ~ S 3I~ 1`,494 131vn ~ - I ~ '^ f 0 l ~` f 3. _... -- 131Vn ~ m~~ lOVdW00 f __ ~ I A. ~ nn rr'' du •°-s~ ~ p~ Y01.~~ ~ 9S~lon .0-bL ~ m I ®^Ca~ lOVdW00 a // i3~tln J ~~~1~449's ( a ~ rO I 1 I f/ ° 04 0313 I A3ltln 131Vn I _ ' ~ ~ ° ~ Q ~ o ~ 131vn ~ 4 n Q o 131vn C ~ ~ m ~B ~ .I3lVn lY \ \ ~ o ~ __ 1 ~ ~ 4 ~ ~ 18Bi 131Vn 131Vn ~ ' ~~~ B ~o o ° 131tln \ ~3lvn ~HA_ AAP ~ 131vn z \ ~ a ~ \ \ 131Vn 131Vn ~ ® ~ I \ \ I I p 0 131Vn ~ L \ \ - I ~ \ ~ 131VA 131vn_~ L 1,~ ~ 'Z_ o _ ~ 1 ~ ~ I ~ ~ \ ~ I I ~ 9 • o M I ~ \ r ~~B rr. n \ ~ , 1 \ ~ n M n - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I L.---~ I \ \ ` ~ I ~ ~ ~ ,CBs ~ I ~ ~ ~ _.~ I ~ ~ ~ ~B ~ I ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ I ~ \ ~ ~' ~ I ~ ~ I I \ ~ ____ ~ ~ _ _ _ ...J - '-. ,_. ~ 8 ~ c E rv ~ ~ £ I'. ,~ ,.~~ ~ W ~ Q s ~~ F z a .-~ i ~' Y ~Yn P H F° f ~....I ~ _ _ ~~ c =y%~ oavao7oo '7rvn ~ a ~ ~ G O I g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ a ~} ~ob~ zr~n s~ s~~N~aIS~I ~ ~ a ~ o N ~ ~~~ ~~o °'~~ ~~~~ ~~~o ~ o KO~y ~t)yO NO,L'I2I~~ Z.I,I2I ~H.L ~ ~ y~o~ ~ ~' I g a~° 5~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ a ~ ~ Q ~s~ ~ w~ ~~ ~° ~ ~ A ° ~g~~~s zz ~~ - ~ a o _ ~, o ~ ~~~~~~ o r 6 G I ~ .T..-..-. ~y ~ ~ / - - - - - - - _ 3NI1.1L213d0ad ~ -. -., Y~O~ I ~~ - d-~d- _ ~to'~y~sgo, ~~Wt ~~~~ ~ o ~ ~ m~ ,S p OOVI(O'TOO "1NA ~ Y. ~i~ ~ N ~~~ ~ a~ ~~~o ~~~ z~n i~ s~~N~.ais~x g s ~ ~ s e ~ ~ ~ a o s ~ ~~~~ ~ ~~ r ~ n ~ ~ ~ r r 2, L ,,~ W _~ e~ ~~ O ~ m ~$ ~ ~ N i~ I -I- ~ _. ---- _ ~I~ oavxozoo'zrvn ~ J~ ZI~'A Z~ S~~N~QIS~2I .~~ y~'~s 1~IO.L'RI~~-Z,LI2I ~H.I, $ ~ ~Ov O A WzF tvOy~ a ~ S a a ~ o ~~g~ ~ ~ I e ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ I ~~ a ~~~ ~ G~G ~ a ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ z~ ~~ A a? ~~ ~ ~~G~G ~ o o0 0 ~o5s ~lyq}}3j ~~G~~ ~~ ~ ~ N ~Q ~ ~ ~ g o ~~ ~ ~ ~ g~~ ~ W~ s s - ~ a a Q ~ '~ ~ a ~--i ~ ~ ~~` ~g ~C Q s~ J Cn~ ~ ~ H ~ A H 4 F ~^ p~ 3 a= ~tiO'~J W ~~ q •t tioy~sti0 d oavxo~oo hrvn ~' F ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ a o °~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ `a ~~ ~ ~ zl~n i~ s~~N~aIS~I ' - ~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ NO,L I2I~~ Z.I,I2I ~H.I, ~ ~ o ~ Q ~, I o ~~~ Q~ ~9~ 3 ~ ~~ ~ ~ "~° Q ~ ~ o $ " ~ ~ s ~I s s c_ s s ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ o ~0 0 ~o~~~~~ ~ a ~o ~~~~~ o ~ ffP~ ~~ ~ 4 i~ I W a c~ `y~i ~, k ply ,{•~J _ __ __ .._ ~ ~ ~ ~z S~ ~ ~i pQd OQtlXO'IO~`TIVA 0~~~ O o~ ~J ~~ ~ ~~~" ~ ° 'II~A ,I.`t~ S~~N~QIS~ ~ o ~ o ~" I ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~FB ~ ~ ~ $ t~~v ~ A S ~ S .. .. ffi ffi ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ i ~~ ~ i a o 0 ~ y~ ~ ~ l~IO,I,'I2I~~-Z.I.RI ~H,L ~ ~ ~°~ ~ ~ ~ ~s° ~~~ ~ ~ ° ~ ~ ~~ ~°~ ~ ~~` ~ ~ d ~ ~ A u~ ~ ~ S a ~ ti ~ A _.. --.--- -- - I W D Cf ~ rl _ __ -_.____-=_-_ fax ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ so~~~s QQ ~}, ag R o ~~~~ oavuozoo'2rvn ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~1 ~ 8 ~ ~~ ~s ~~ ~~y~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'ITETtl ,L~ S~~N~QIS~2I ,~ ~ ~ N ~ ~y ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~ g '~c~y~sti Nos~~-zilx ~xx. ~ ~ °> A ~{- ~ ~ s ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ a ~ ~ o a ~ ~$ o $~ l ti~ ,~ ,1 r~ ~~ '~' rRY~-~ i ~i~ I' ~~ ~ ,e ~-2=-n - `Tr ~ ll - ~. a I ~ i I n C+ ~ ,~J oavxoTOO `~[vn ~ ~ z $ ~ o ~ ~"~ b ° ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ a ~ _ ~ s a yL, \z~ ~ ~ a [~ Ol~ ZI~A .L~ S~~N~QIS32I ~ o ~ ~ s ~ ~ I ~ x° ~~s ~~~ ~gJ~ ~~~° ~ r ~ ° g 5 S ~ ~ 0 0 V ° ~ ~ ° ~ ~ ~'~~ u'lu° two ~~Z6 °a" ~ ~ ~ ~ °'~ C.~~ ,~ w ,.] a ~ ~! ~ ~S NO.I,'I2I~~-Z.I,I2I ~H.L ~' a ~' o o ~ N ~ ~~~ ~~ 0 5go~ G ~ ~q~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4..._T € `z ~ Q g ply ~OJ ~ ~ Q"` ° ~ I ~ s~ ~> ~"~ ~~ x ~d~~ d ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ 1.-l.i 1 "~~ I I I / ~ ~ ~ \ ' I ; \. ~~/ '~ ~~I Ii~~ ~~ I ~ ~ , ~ ~ r ~ . ~~ ,III, ~ ~ II ~ 1 ~ I I ~ I ~I ~ ~_~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ S~ /'~ Ilr~ ~ 'r j3- I J I II ~ / I~~~ ~~ 1 I/ ~~ ~ I / ~ -- Via; ~ 1 ~ I i ~ ~ i I\ ~ L` ~ I IL ~I t~ f j ~ ~ -~ i i ~ ~ i ~' ~i ~ / ` I 1 ~ I ~~ ~ ~ _ ~ i ;M ~ ~ -~ ; ~ ~. ~~ it '' ~' ~ '\ ~ ,- ~~ - - ~~~ - ~ I .;~ I ~ - ,'\ \ \ ) -_ I ~~ a ~ ~~I i/// ' ;,-mil I ~g t ~ ~ taa \ - ~ ~ ~ /.. ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~~~ -- - - -- --- I < " ~ ~~ a i~ \ `` \ ~ ` 1``\ 1 _ Sad a J I \ ~-\ ~ ~" ~, ,-~ r n " ' ~L x n ~ ~li~ ~ B~ ~ ~ yy ~I I ~ - N ffi M ~ w O R m ~ ~ k ~ N ~ m ~ Y ~^ n R N S m M rrv ~ $ & Im ~ ~ o ~ ' ~ v ~ ~v x ° m ~ ~ ° ~ I^ iS ^ N ~ ' m 6 n r N ~ .ti ^ ~ g 13 M n N ~ m ffi m ~ n .- ° m ~ ~~ & N ^< ^ ~ n ~ m ~ ~u ~ ~ o ~ ~ m ~ N ~ ^ '<< Yd m m ~ r R 5 a ~' a . ~ ~ . ~ I I ( '^ .al~ e "im '° ~ ~E Ki "' ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~' '^ ^ „ . " R ~ ~C ~ N " ~ °` a ~ `a ~ ~ "' ~ ~ ~ ° ~ 6 ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ M ~ ~ ' ° m ~ ! ~ '~ ~ I i I I ~, .~ ~ . `~ m~ ~i~ ~ "~w 6~iffi u~ ~ m ~i ..r ~ .- i ~ e o ~'I - ~ ffi ~ d ~, ~ o nl . e o & . N ~ ~ ~~ ~I _ n . ~ ~ n o Pd ~ r ~ m !`' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n m n ~ 6 ~ ~ ~ u3 b ffi _ ~ . n W ~ ~ n ~ ~ ~ ~ m ni a n ~ ~ ~ K' e ~ ~ ~ ~ fd ~ ~ ~ m o n .. m ~ c - - ~ St8 ~ ~ ffi ~ F B ~ ~ ~ >B ~ ~ ~ ~ ffi ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 95 ~ ~ ^ ~ n ~ fJ >b ° ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ R 2 6 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ K' ~ ~ S ~ ~ f2 E3 `~' !° ~ ~ s ~ ~_ R ~ Sl 8 9s ~ >B K >~ ~i ~ ~ ~ ffi ~ ~ ~ >8 ~ ~ 8 >° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ F~ ~ ~ ~° R m R ~ a ~ ry ~ ry ~ o k m ~ a ~ o & rt R r ~ m ~ M e m ~ m ~ m ~ m, r; w ~ ~ ~ M $ ry ~ m ~. n 3 a ~ o ~° ri ~ n K ~ ~ I I ~ `i > I x > ro m ~ g o W a ~ LL ~ t '~ ~ a f # : ~ a ° & a ~ ~ ~ k ~ ~ ~ ~ ' # ~ ~ S ~ ~ ~ v m w~ w i ~ ~ x ~ x Y ~ s ~ f g ~ a ~ ~ a pp ~ ~ 3 ~ '>> 3 ~ ~ e < :~~ i Y w ~ ~ s Y ~ ~ ~ (S ~ h b 3 3 ~ ) IJ ~ U i ° i # Y ~ i u f W ~ > 3~ ~ Y ~ f f d U K ~ I / ' / ~~:~ 'I ~~~ I \ I \ J ~~ a \\\I \ \ / ~ ~ J I ~~~ ~I ~~ ¢_~~ ~~ r / \ I I I I I I I I I " i I __ I i I I I I t I I I i --' -~ I l I l ~ i I I i s ~~ 1 j ~ a ~ ~W 5 .w 'sS g ~ ~ ~° ~~ ~~ o ~~ ~~ ~ 4~ ~ ~~ ~ a ~~ ~c ~9~~ 7n I m o ~C~ "' m o io a m i ~~ x S¢ ~ mm ~ / ~ / ~ -- i / i / / / \~ 1 I / \ \ I \ ~ ~ \\ I \ \U u _ __ .. -... --_ _. ~__ __...~...,.~ J a ~;~OI~ J omuozo~'~ivn ~ o ~ ~ O ~ ° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~C ~ J 8 ~ ~ g ~ ~ s o ~ o ¢ o '--1 /~ ~7 ~,7 • T V !T^ ~ T!T/-~ r-~~7~ ~} ,~pa~,+~ ~ °s d ~ ~ ° ~ S 6 Lrz , F" "Il_ 1IVLI .LV SaJl~l.7l1IS.~Q ~ ;!~O~o ~ ~1 I~ ~~~ ~~o w~~ ~ kp ~~~° ~ o ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ rJ ~ .w.1W6t.' o .~OOy s~ NO.L'RI`d~-Z.I,RI 3H,I, ~ ~ w o ~ a ~, I ~ ~~o ~6; ~"~ ~ ~ ~~o ~ ~ ~°~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "- ~`" d` x a o ~~ ti O, >Q s~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ f~a a ~ ~ ~ ~ owe I ~ i ~ J j ® j i i I I I i ro.. ,~ ~~._ -- I I I I _ _ ®m ® I I ® ® ® 1 I ~ I ® ® ® ~ i i I I ~ - r I L __ _. I _ - -- --- -- - - - I ~ ®®® _ I I 1-- - ; _ I ,T I I ~ ~o ~o ! I a. ,.I i _._. ® ® ® I I I t11~~~, ~ _ - __!.... I an t® ~o I ; r ~ I®©®L I . I _ I ®®® - ,__ ~1~- ~-- f -- ' --- Z _~_ ~ ' I L_~l I ~~ '~ I ! I _ - 1 --- .® - ~ ~ , I , I I, A II '~~ d l i I I i i I I ~~ ''I ~_ N I-ij--~ ,; s I ,, Ir ~ - ~ I I I ~ 1 1 : • .I I ~ ~ J i _ I _ , ... I .f' I ~ I ~ ~ ~~ I I I I ~ ~ i i .. ',. I ' _ I _ .. .. I _ , . ~~_ ~il~llf:l I~~ I ! - ~ - I _ i _. ~ ~ - ~ ;~ ~ I ~ I 'I o l m ® o o f i I i { I - .. . - .... -- _ I..~_ z I ,_ _ ._ ; I ~ . _ _ I I_ ..._- I i I I I ~ ~ ~ ~ I I 1 aowo aunoad~Nl aNn iH ei3HZenalxvW i i 3Wtl0 HSINIIJJ ~ ~ 3Nn 1H,HI3H WnWI%YYI ~9-,ZB I ~ ~ I h ~ • S f am ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ N ll I I ~rf,i ~ET~T,!, I r iQP[lIASi.TAlSiua.u~I.u~aluxGl a}l1Ar F ~ ~~H-~,I ~~ ~ +~II i ~ ~~I]II~Jiilnj I `~'~~F`, I~ ~~ aD -s r7"'m'lrE.~ ~h ~, .. ~~ h~, 1 ~ u~,~I. L -` _i._.. ~~ l f I ~ ~ ~'~~ I~ ~ ~ £~ ~ i I ~J ~~ ail , Y Nk ~ ~, ;. _. ~I ll,~;i ~ ~"~ ~ I r ;, I f.,~l{ ~i I :; I~ ~; i I I r. L. r.- ~i I I I i - ~ I , I I- . ~ _ I I :; I I I I I - I ~ I ~ I- ' I I _, I f ' I~ I ~I I Ii I i I is , i I r ! Ij it ; I~ II I___ .1i G i i .I i! II30Ytl9 HSINI! ~ 3NAI 1H013H ~WnW1 %YWi 1 ,9-.Z9 ~ I i ~~ ---^I l I I ~ I. I~ l I!, i I I _..... _ .. I _...I_;. ' I I I" ~. j li ~ , I ~ I l __ - I_~ I!. l I__ I I', I, i__ iI I I I' I I ~ I'' I '~ 1~~~~i~~~~~l~;;i, i ~i~ir,p l~~l I i~i~ I ~ii~'i~ ~ I ii~li' ~ ~i Ali ~ w ~ I i~~l ~ iii i,il s =1 i ill lii~ ~I'~il~l ~~I ~ ~ I -r g z 0 H W a w'~ ~~~I W ~ =~Q t~ a~ a g ~ ~~ a ~ ~g~~~~ ("~ oor ~~ OQVHO'I00 "TINA I~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o - = - o 0 ~ z? G ~i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ¢ ~ N ~7~ 'II`dA ,L~ S~~i~I~QIS~2i ~ °~ o ~ ~ ~ N I ~~ ~~ ~a~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a a ~ ~ Ya Qy~s i~iO,I.'Ri~~ Z,I,I2I ~H,I, ~ ~ ° > ~ g 5 ~ ~ ~ w ~ ~ x ~ g s ~ G A~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ w H x ~ s rI"~-- ~,---~---L--- ~ ~ I I I I I I I I - _ ~ ~_I__! _I_ ~~~I--~--~-y-L---~- ~- ~1.------------- -}- - --- _ ( 0 p U I ~ I I I ~ '~ I I 0 0 0 I z` I ~ I I ~ I ~'~ I t~~u ~~ I ~ I :,"~ ~ ® ® I ~ ~__ __ - -1 __ - I w I - ~, I ® ® I ~ _~~ I ~' i ~ `, I ~ __ ~ I ' __ ~ ~~ ~ I X11 I „~ I v~l ,,.~ . (, ..l- ---- I o ~ I ' i - - ---- - - ._. -- - - - - --- - I w I I ;.,,,~~ ® ® ® ~ ~~ _ _- ----- - ------- - --- I ,~ t ~-~ - - - _ ~° ~i' I _ I~ I - I ~ A ~~ I - - _... I I I J L -._ .-._ _. _ ----._. I {„ 1 _ -_ -- I ~ ~ _ il1T. I ,.I I I I I .,, .... ,..... I I 1 I-- _. I !~I Ik~llh __ _ I I I _i.. r~ I _ - .. _ L_. .. ,., ~. __. `~ .. - _ ~ I I -- .~ ~: I ~ ll --- - --- -- _...__ _. .. .. I I ~ ~ t~ I _ I I J --- i c r ® _ I_ i 1 ( -- --- -- .- ... _ i I L] 1 .1 I ~ I i I n f~~i~l r .i _ I I I I ~ :: I '~ 1.,, ~ i .: ~ _ ;r ..~-- I I ~ r~l ~ `~, I ~ ~ ~ I I - -. .. _. _ `I - II + ~. ~- .- r; I - I ~, I I I ~ ~ i -. r 11, I ~ 1.~ i le~ ~I ~i 11 l ' I ~ I '- .. ----- - ------ - - _ _ - - -- ~1 I . . l a ~ ~a w n l ~ ~': .: I I tszll I t~~l I ICI III--III i r ' r - I I I ® I I 6 ~.... _.r~r Iu~~L__u~r ~~ ~.e= I I C ~ .I.- __. _ .. _ I' - - - -- -- - - u. - --~,,)-_-__-__~__ r I I --~ _ t t - I _ 3 1 ' I ~ -- ~., ~ - -- - - - -- -. I ---. - _. _ _ _ _ I I ~ ~ I , I . .,I I I ® ®tl® ~® I 3NI1a1H013H jYnW3%tlW, I ! .9-.Li i :: I ~ ® Y Y , ® N® o® I 3NI131H03HH W'nHIM9Y ! , ~..- ---- - __ _ - _ ~ , ~ . ,,. I I ~ ~~ " _ I I II I l`_~_ _. -- I- I ~ - I I I ® I I ' I I I l ~ >•. - - .._ __ I h, ... __ _ - _- ---- -- I- ~.,, ~. I ®wl -- . I I ~ I I ® ~' - I ~ I I I I I ~ ~ l+--I~~-- -~ ------ I I I ' 3N'a9 031MOdEA1Nl ' 3Nf1 L1 13H WfIW .9-,LB I ~ ' 30WD HSINLi 3 W913 wnWlxvrv ,9-~ B ~ I I <~ 'vet ~ c ~='I ~ ~ r~i ~r'i si ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ x ~~(~~ __ - -- - oavuo~o~'~R'n ~~ zr~n s~ s~~Naals~I d'p`~K I~IO,I.'RIV~-Z~I.,I2I H.I. s ~~~y Sao J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ o ~ a. ~ ~ o ~ ~ s ~ s ~ C ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~Q ~ ~ X f I I I ,~ I I I 1 { I I s N G, ~ p II 7 II d I I I I ~ I I I I ~ ~ x~ °d ~~ ~^ ~ ~ $ «x d d ~" ~z G ~~O v, d M ~Oa ~ m ~ d 5 ' $ W0. u~°z ti _ _--~ -- z o Goy ~~ ~~a ~ ~ ~ c ~~J OQtl80'IO~`'INA ~' _ J~ 'II~dA ,LK S~~N~QIS~2I ° ~ ~ ~ o ~ s ~ d" ~ ~ ~d ~o w~ o ~~~y~s~o i~IO,L'RI~~-Z,LI2i ~H,I. ~ ~ A ° ~ a ~' ( ~ s~ ~~ ~~~ J ° l5` 1 _, ~ ~ 1 ' r ' -- - ~~ ~~~. ~ 0 ~ ~ ~~~~ ~~ z ~°~° s ka' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s ~ ~~~ 0 0 ~~$$ ~. s° o ~. ~~~~ (~ w ~oa 0 ~, I ~ ~ -- Iv-- - --- 1 i i i i ~o ~x ~ Y~ ~ ~Y ^u ~~ ~ ~ I I rr,,~~ 3 ~ x^_ su +~ ~ rci O ~ ~ oavxozoo `Zrvn ~ ~ w a ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ e ~ ~ ~ $ $ ~ ~ ~ o ~~`90 'II~A.I.~S~~N~QIS~2I ~ o~~~ ~' I~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ s - ~ Ld~z> o ~~yy z R V ~t b~y'~s 1~IO.I.'I2i~~-Z.I.I2I H.I. ~ ~ ~ o ~ CV ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ W N O ~' ~ ~ W V ` A d' I ~~~ G°a'ub ~ ~yy~' " ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ F~6 0CO> ~v]~ O-w ~ A ~U~ <' ~ m w~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1%~u~ A F F F ~~ U W ~j I ~ I w Q W I I. I .I. I f I W-I ' ® ® I ~ F ~1 ® ® V1 ®II ® j1J \ ( ~" I ® ® ~ ~ ® ® ~--I ® ® ® - -; a a ~ ' ®®, ® ~ ®~ ~®I®~® W ~ ®®® . _.. a > ~ .., .~ .. , G~2 ~ ~ , r. ... _ i _:. - - ,,,.: ~; i w r _ _ L._ l L. I ® I I I I IY I I I.~E ~ ~I ~y ~I ~I _,, ~.; r- __ _. I L ;~ ` __ _ ® II1161IIMI ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I I a. ~ _ - _ I ~_ - ~ ~_ fr~f l~u i ~~T i ~~i I -_ i i~a~ i~ I~ I . . .. ~. , ..=ti. __ -_ __ ~ m1 1 ~ ' UYStt xfl ~ ht.[nc.~= ~. I ~ I i I I I I I ~ I ~ I - l i i i i i i Y i m i N i ~ 11 " i m i ~j ° o ~ ~ d ~ ~ d d ~ d ~ ~ d ~Jd d ~ ~ ~ O ~J 7 q ~t~ ~y'~s E ~ ~OJ QQVU0Z~.7 ~7NA 'II~'A ZF~ S~~N~QIS~2I ~ ° w ~ s NO.I.'I2I~~'Z.LI2i ~H~, ~ ~ o 0 >A aV & ~ ~ ~ V ~ 4l c ~ T`I ~ ~O~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ c $ ~ N ~ 3 ~~~ ~~o ~ O ~ ~~ ~~~~ ~a~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'o ~ S ~ o ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~y ~ N w M F N ~ Q ° ~ ~¢ SzW ~ O ~ ~ ~~W ~ e~ O~~ waw w Y I I I I I I I I n ~ ~ ~ q ~q ~ ~ m ~ 3 •.`~ se I n I I I I I I I I N °~ e ~ d ~ F ~~ * ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ S g ' ~ ~ u ~w ~d i ~ Q~~ ppV80'IOZ `ZIYA ~= Jo zn~n x,~ s~~N~ais~x bo`~~ t~ox,~xx~~-ziix ax,z o J a ~_ ~ ~ s H ~ o a N a 8 ~ ~~u ~a~° ~° ~ ~~ ~ GG ~ o Dq ~~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, _ _ ~ _ - - M ~ - 1 ~ / L~ n a~ C ~~ ~- - ~~ ~~ C - - < < r L-- ' I ~ _~ , ~ w a o~ &~ ~ ~ ~~ o~ ~~ ~ o 0 ~~ g z z ~ ' ~ ~ ~- _ ! ` u ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ I ~ ~ , , , , ~ _ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~, _~ ~ ~~ z ~w~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ G ~ ~~ ~~o ~ ~ s ~~ ~ ~` ~°; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ I ~ v ~ I s ~ ~ ~ I n ~ w ~r~ N aW ~ <~ ~ A II ~ Np z ~ ~: ~~ ~~ O,~ x $ ~ ~ s s -/ ~ n s s = d B 8 ~ ~ s ~ ~ ~~ ~~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~W W ¢ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 C.C5 Q H ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~O ~ ~`~O y s,L KO oavxozoo'zivn 'II~'1i Z~ S~~1~I3QIS~2I NO.I,'I2I`F~~-Z.LI2I ~H.I, F ~ z, o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~og O ~ d- I ~ o ~, ( ~~ ~ a ~ o ~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~" ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ s ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ S ~ ~ o Q~ ~ ~ S g ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o S ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ '~ A u ~ ~ `~ ~ ° ~ r ~ ~ ~'°. f ,'°. ~ N 8 ~~ - - al ~ ~ ~~ ~ '~ o. ~~ d ~ ~ ~ ~ $ Q I, ~~ g I ~ I~~ ~ I ~~ ~~ I ~ G~ ~ ~ I ~~ ~ I 3~ ~ ~ a 2 ~ G ~ ~ _~ e~ ~ V ~ s ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ x ~ " ° d ~ " d ~ d d ~d d Wo N ~ ~ ~ N a w Yi ~~~,~ oavxozoo'zrvn ~ ~ ~ Q w~ ~o o ~ ~ ~ ,~ zl~n i~ s~~u~als~I ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ 'd' ~ ~ $~ ~s ~~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~ ~ b ~~~ s ~ ~~~s wa ~ ~° ~ K~~y~it+~ i~O.I.'RI~~'Z.I,I2I ~H.L ~ ~oo ~ d„ I s ~~o ~~~ "~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ti ~~ ~ A s~ ~ m ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ I ~ I~ ea~~~s ~ ~$$ z o Wa ~A~~ F O N x __ __~_-- 1i --- I---- ~~ i II I ~ ~Q ~ ~ I~ I ~ ~ ~F ~F <C ~ I ~ ~~ ~a~ I r' a ~ ~~ ~ ~ °d ad ~ ~d ~' ~d ~~ ~~ `~~~ oavuo~oo'~rvn ~ H Q ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ o Y g ~ ~ o ~a~ ~ ~ ~l0~ S,~ NO.L'RIF~~ Z,I,I2I ~H,I, ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~~ ~~> a ~ o ti O, 5 w s~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ a ® ~ Y ~ &~ d ~.~ ,..a t o$~~~a ~ ~ W o d- ~ ~~~~ ~~ ~a~~~ a ~ ~ e ~ ~ r $ aEr-~ ~ w ~„ o r r r I I ~m _ .'_~ _fll WTI I ----- G ®-~ ---- ~~~ -- - ~ a' ~ -----_- ~ g I, ~~ ~~ ~~ a~ ~~ z~ ~$ ~~~ G~i ~ ~~~ ~~~ oo~ N€ ~~ 0 ~~ ~~ 3; I I 4 ~~ d ~ - --- - /~, g ~ H ~ oavaozo~'~~vn 7 'II~'t1 Z~ S~~N~QIS~2I ~ ° ~ ~ s NCO ~y'~S,y NO,I,'RI~'~-Z,LI2I ~H,L ~ ~ o 0 a ~' GJ ~ o 4F A ~~ ~& ~ _ _ ._. __ }. o ~ ~I I ~~~ ~s 9~ ~~~~ ~~o N ~ ~~~ ~~,~ ~$y ~~a~ ~~z " ~ 18 ~S~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ 0 i ~ ~1 7 ~J ~ G "~ ~ ~ ~b ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~~ N ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ f~~ ~~ 4 ~~ ~~ ~® I ~ x ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ _ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ z$ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~F ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.~ ~ I ~o ~ ~ s ~~ ~ N ~ o 0 ~d ~ ~d Md d d d ~ ~ 4 a1`~ ~L ~ 8 ~~I OaYHOT00'TIYA $~" ~ O ~ V & ~ 7 'IIFTA I.~S3J1~i3QIS32i o a ~ ~~ o a~x ~o ~~s ~ ~ p ~C a~~ ~~ x s c p,=,~' tip o , Q~< ~ `d' ~ Aso ~ ~~ ~a~° ~ ~ J pp ~F F~ ~ ~®g ~ ~ N C ~i N ,I C 1 N C 8 ~ ~ a s ~ s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~ H~ A N H i ~ 1~ ~ ~O ~ d ¢ N 6p~ wa ~ i 4 ' ~~ a~ n~ 5x ~~ F ~ ~ ~ x s ~ ~ ~ s ~~ ,'~ h ~~/~ --:.. oavxozoo'zrvA ~ a Q ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~'~~~$ ~ ~ ~ _ = ~ $ ~ cao W `~7b 'IIKA..L~ S~~N~QIS~2I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ''~' ( ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~"'~' ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c ,~ ~y~syo 1\ro~.rl~[~~-zslx ~xs. ~ ~ Q ~ < ~ N~f- - I ~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~a ~ W ~ o ~ ~ _~ 5 ~, ~ ~~ w~ ~ ~o G~~ ~'o h ~~ ~ ~I n OW I d I I I~ I I I I n~ pp. pp pp pp u pp~ F F G G t` as F~ ~aa W 9 ~K i u ~7 ~ ~ € d to I I I ~ ~ ~~I ~ ~ I ~ ~ +~ ~ ~II II ~~ _.. ~I~ oavxozo bib 'II~n ,I.~ s~ ~l~Gy'~S,y I~IO,I.Z2T'6'~' ~j- Oa _._ H O ~y ~`'IIVA I ~°~ G ~ S zx,Ix ~xx, ~ ~ ~~< A ~ ~ ~ ~s~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ x o ~ I ~~ -- -~~ -- a ~ Q d ~ N , W W it "4 Z 0 L~ w a w H' ~„ w I ~ I i I~ =L _ ~€ ~--~~ r ~~ ~~ ~° ~~ ~ ~ o~; ~_ ~ ~a 'm I I Z - Z C ~ - I a _~ ~ i M I I ~ I I I ~~ ~~b~ ~ ~ d ~ ~~ I ~ ~ I ~ ~~ ~ ~° ~- ~g 8~ -~r~-- c ~~ Y 8 s o ~'$ ~ ~ s 3 s ~ a ~ .. ~ a s _ s ~ ~~s ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e ~ ~ ~ $ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ w w ~~ ~~ I _ I jo 5s~ o ~ ~~ d ~ 28 ~ ~x 35 1 ~~ ~~ ~I y- IffflliVl ~ l ~ ~~ oavuozo~'zrvn ~ ~ §~ O ~go ~ ~S~ ~~ ~ ~~o ~ o _ o,~ ZI~A,Lb' S3~N3QIS~2I ° ~ s ~ sZ a ~ ~~" .~ooy~s~ NO,I,'12I~~-Z.I.I ~ ~ ~ < a '~ 1 ° ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~° a ~ 8 w, OJ A o `~' r _I~ :._~-._ _-__--...-_ -- o - ~~I - ~~ ~ ~ 'a' ~ s s o ~~~~ ~Q~~~ >oo F. ~ O N N N Q a i I =L I ~ ~a z ~ w~ ~~~ I ~ ~~ ~ g I I ~~ ~~ ~ I ~w ~ i I { ~I I Il I I l I I F I ' ~ ~ G I „~ I I I 8 ~ I ( ~ ~~ I I I I h i ~ ~ e od ~,{ ~o ~ `¢~ ¢ N ~~ ~ W ~ ~, __ t ~ a ~ i oavuozo~'zron `~ - ~4 'IIF~A .I.~ S3JN3QYS32T ~ ~ w ~ ~ $ ~' I ~~ ~o ,~„ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ .s $ ~ ~ Q z ~~° ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~9 o s s s ~ ~ ~ N ar ~ "ax 9 ~~ ~ 7a~o "~ o ,~ O ~S L~IO.L'Ri~d~-Z.LI2I ~H,I, Q boo ~ N ~ ~~~ ~s ~~~ ~~a~ ~a~V ~ ~ C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ fA O ~ ~~ F~N 4 H H H fp~ p i Q &° 4 ~o ~~ G w ~ ~ M~ G~ ~ C ~ / ~~ ,. ~ L_- ___.__... ___ ___ . ~_' I ~~ ~~ ~, ~ ~ ~i iii ~~ ~~ ~ ~ I ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~$ ~F .~ _~ t ~ g $ ~ ~ ~ =~~I•t oornreTO~ nrvn ~ F ~~ ~ G ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s n ~ $ ~ ~z W ~~d- 'IIFTA ,L`d S~~1~I~QIS~2I ~ ~ ~ ~ s ~ N I ~ ~~ ~~s ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -~ ~- ~ ~ U o •t~~y'~d-,`O i~LO.I,'I2I~~'Z,I,I2I ~H.I, ~ ~ ~ ° ~ A ~- I ~ ~ s~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~°~ ~ ~ ~ 6~ ~ ~ ~ s , o ~i H~~ r N ~ -- - Z ~ O N U W z ~. Q.~~ ~e E ~~ O E-~ U W Z ~. q° ~,~ ~e w> ~ / F t i w ~ r ~' • • • [d c m t V t~ 4 • MEMORANDUM . TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: May 8, 2006 SUBJECT: A request for a final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Chapter 12-8E-3, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of a private club; 151 Vail Lane/Lot 2, Mill Creek Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0032) Applicant: Lodge Properties, Inc., Planner George Ruther I. SUMMARY The applicant, Lodge Properties, Inc., is requesting a final review of a conditional use permit application to allow for the operation of a "private club" offering its members skier- related services and amenities, located at the Vail's Front Door, 151 Vail Lane/Lot 2 Mill Creek Subdivision. Based upon Staff's review of the criteria outlined in Section VIII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends approval of this request subject to the findings and conditions noted in Section IX of this memorandum. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Lodge Properties, Inc. is requesting a final review of a conditional use permit application to allow for the operation of a "private club" offering its members (up to 580) skier-related services and amenities. For example, the new ski club will provide members with a variety of skier-related services such as a skier's lounge and great room, changing rooms, ski storage, lockers, outdoor pool and hot tubs, and exclusive member's vehicle parking at the base of Vail Mountain in an underground parking structure. According to the approved development plans, the private club totals more than 14,000 square feet in size and includes 95 underground parking spaces. 285 club memberships will be sold to members wishing to have parking privileges (3:1 ratio). The parking spaces, however, will not be sold off separately as was done at Founder's Park. III. BACKGROUND On September 22, 2003, the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission approved the development plans to allow for the construction of Vail's Front Door project, a redevelopment of the Vista Bahn ski yard. According to the conditions of approval, "The Developer ~sha/IJ submit a development application to the Town of Vail Community Development Department requesting approval of a conditional use permit to allow for the operation fora "private and public club'; pursuant to Section 12-8E-3, Conditional Uses, of the Vail Town Code. The application for the conditional use permit shall be reviewed in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16 of the Zoning Regulations, prior to making application for the issuance of a building permit for Vail's Front Door Project improvements." • IV. REVIEWING BOARD ROLES Order of Review: Generally, applications will be reviewed first by the PEC for acceptability of use and then by the DRB for compliance of proposed buildings and site planning. Plannina and Environmental Commission: Action: The PEC is responsible for final approval/denial of CUP. The PEC is responsible for evaluating a proposal for: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. 2. Effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs. 3. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking areas. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. 5. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed • use. 6. The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use, if an environmental impact report is required by Chapter 12 of this Title. Conformance with development standards of zone district Lot area Setbacks Building Height Density GRFA Site coverage Landscape area Parking and loading Mitigation of development impacts Desian Review Board: Action: The DRB has NO review authority on a CUP, but must review any accompanying DRB application. Town Council: Actions of DRB or PEC maybe appealed to the Town Council or by the Town Council. Town Council evaluates whether or not the PEC or DRB erred with approvals or denials and can uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the board's decision. Staff: 2 The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided and plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff also • advises the applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines. Staff provides a staff memo containing background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS A. Town of Vail Zoning Regulations For the Planning and Environmental Commission's reference, Section 12-16-1, Vail Town Code, identifies the purpose for a conditional use permit as follows: "In order to provide the flexibility necessary to achieve the objectives of this title, specified uses are permitted in certain districts subject to the granting of a conditional use permit. Because of their unusual or special characteristics, conditional uses require review so that they maybe located properly with respect to the purposes of this title and with respect to their effects on surrounding properties. The review process prescribed in this chapter is intended fo assure compatibility and harmonious development between conditional uses and surrounding properties in the Town of large. Uses listed as conditional uses in the various districts may be permitted subject to such conditions and limitations as the Town may prescribe to insure that the location and operation of the • conditional uses will be in accordance with the development objectives of the Town and will not be detrimental to other uses or properties. Where conditions cannot be devised, to achieve these objectives, applications for conditional use permits shall be denied." According to Section 12-2-2, Defintions, Vail Town Code, a "private club" is defined as, "An association of persons and its premises who are bona fide members paying dues, use of such premises being restricted to members and their guests." VI. ZONING ANALYSIS Zoning: Ski Base Recreatoin - 2 District Land Use Plan Designation: Vail Village Master Plan Current Land Use: Recreation/Ski Yard VII. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Land Use Zoninq North: Commercial Commercial Core-1 South: Recreation/USES N/A East: Residential Primary/Secondary West: Residential PrimarylSecondary • VIII. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS The review criteria for a request of this nature are established by the Town Code. The proposed "private club" is located within the Ski Base Recreation zone district. This 3 proposal is subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 12-16, Vail Town Code. • A. Consideration of Factors Reaardino Conditional Use Permits: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the Town. Staff believes the proposed private club is consistent with the purpose of the Ski Base Recreation -2 zone district. According to the purpose statement of the Ski Base Recreation - 2 district, in part, "The ski base/recreation 2 district is intended to provide sites for facilities, activities and uses necessary for and appurtenant to the operation of a ski mountain. A variety of other facilities, uses and activities, including, but not limited to, residential, public and semipublic uses and special community events typically associated with a vibrant resort community are also permitted within the district." Furthermore, staff believes that this request furthers the following Vail Village Master Plan goals, Goal #1 Encourage high quality, redevelopment while preserving unique architectural scale of the village in order to sustain its sense of community and identity. • Goal #2 To foster a strong tourist industry and promote year-around economic health and viability for the village and for the community as a whole. Goal #5: Increase and improve the capacity, efficiency, and aesthetics of the transportation and circulation system throughout the village. Staff believes that the proposed conditional use will have a positive impact on the development objectives of the Town as the proposed use furthers the goals and objectives of both the Zoning Regulations and the Vail Village Master Plan. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. Staff believes the proposed use will have negligible effects on the above- mentioned criteria. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking • areas. 4 Vehicular access to the private club will be via Vail Road en route to the underground parking structure. Members with parking privileges (up to 285 • members) will drop their vehicles off at the entrance to the club where the vehicle will then be taken to the underground parking structure by the valet parking attendants. Access to the club for members without parking privileges (up to 295 members) will by drop off at the front entrance or by foot. Given the location of the use and the nature of its operation, it is likely that vehicular traffic to this area will increase. Considerations for this increase in vehicular traffic have been addressed in the roadway and access design for the site. A potential relocation of Checkpoint Charlie is contemplated to further address the increase vehicular traffic and was made a condition of approval of Vail's Front Door development plan. 3. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. The private club has been designed to be a one-story tall building constructed primarily of stone and wood. An extensive landscape plan has been approved by the Design Review Board for the site. As such, the new building will not be out of character with its surroundings nor will its design negatively detract from the character of the buildings existing on the adjoining properties. Staff believes that the new ski club building will have a positive impact on the character of the area. B. The Plannina and Environmental Commission shall make the followina findinas • before arantina a conditional use permit: 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the Ski Base Recreation -2 District. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it will be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission approves the applicant's request for a conditional use permit to allow for the operation of a "private club" offering its members skier-related services, located at the Vail's Front Door, 151 Vail Lane/Lot 2 Mill Creek Subdivision. . Staff's recommendation of approval is based upon the review of the criteria described in Section VIII of this memo and the evidence and testimony presented. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the applicant's • request, staff recommends that the following findings be made as part of a motion: 5 1. That the proposed locations of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the district • in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed locations of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this request, staff recommends the following condition(s) of approval: 1. That this approval shall only become effective upon the adoption of an ordinance by the Vail Town Council placing the development site in to the Ski Base Recreation - 2 District. 2. A maximum of 285 memberships may be sold to members wishing to have on site vehicle parking. • 6 .'~ • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 8, 2006 SUBJECT: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for Ski Base Recreation-2 zone district on a 5.13 parcel of land commonly referred to as the "Front Door USFS land exchange parcel", located at 151 Vail Lane/(A complete legal description is available at the Community Development Department), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0014) Applicant: United States of America, by and through the Forest Service, represented by Vail Resorts Development Company Planner: George Ruther • I. SUMMARY The applicant, the United States of America and the United States Forest Service, represented by Vail Resorts Development Company, has submitted a development review application to the Community Development Department to allow for the zoning of "Front Door USFS land exchange parceP' to the Ski Base Recreation-2 zone district (SBR-2) . A complete legal description has been attached for reference (Attachment A). The applicant has submitted the application in anticipation of the redevelopment of the Vista Bahn ski yard more commonly referred to as Vail's Front Door. Staff is recommending approval of the applicant's development review application. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant, the United States of America and the United States Forest Service, represented by Vail Resorts Development Company, has submitted a development review application to the Town of Vail Community Development Department. The purpose of the application is to amend the Official Zoning Map of the Town of Vail whereby the "Front Door USFS land exchange parcel" is zoned to the Ski Base Recreation-2 (SBR-2) zone district. According to the applicant, the zoning is intended to facilitate the redevelopment of the Vista Bahn ski yard. A vicinity map of the development site and surrounding area has been attached for reference. (Attachment B) .~ , IV. BACKGROUND • On April 1, 2003, the Vail Town Council approved Resolutions No. 2 & 3, Series of 2003, amending the Vail Land Use Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan to include the area of the Front Door USFS land exchange parcel into the Plans, and approved Ordinance No. 4, Series of 2003, amending the Zoning Regulations and creating the Ski Base Recreation - 2 District. On May 2, 2006, the Vail Town Council approved Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2006, approving the annexation of the Front Door USFS land exchange parcel into the Town of Vail. ROLES OF THE REVIEWING BODIES Rezonina/Zone District Boundary Amendment Planning and Environmental Commission: The Planning and Environmental Commission is advisory to the Town Council. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall review the proposal and make a recommendation to the Town Council on the compatibility of the proposed zoning with surrounding uses, consistency with the Vail Comprehensive Plans, and impact on the general welfare of the community. Design Review Board: The Design Review Board has no review authority on zoning/rezonings. • Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided. The staff advises the applicant as to compliance with the Zoning Regulations. Staff provides a staff memo containing background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. Town Council: The Town Council is responsible for final approval/denial of a zoning/rezoning. The Town Council shall review and approve the proposal based on the compatibility of the proposed zoning with surrounding uses, consistency with the Vail Comprehensive Plans, and impact on the general welfare of the community. V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Town of Vail Zoning Regulations (Title 12, Vail Town Code) (in part) 12-8E-1: PURPOSE: The ski base/recreation 2 district is intended to provide sites for facilities, activities and uses necessary for and appurtenant to the operation of a ski mountain. A variety of other facilities, uses and activities, including, but not limited to, residential, public • and semipublic uses and special community events typically associated with a vibrant resort community are also permitted within the district. The ski ,~ ~. base/recreation 2 district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities appropriate to permitted and conditional uses throughout the district. In order to achieve this objective and to ensure compatibility with adjacent land uses, all permitted uses, development and activity within the district shall be subject to approval of a comprehensive development plan in accordance with the provisions of this article. Furthermore, due to the likelihood of this district being located at the base of Vail Mountain, and upon some of the most critical and important lands to the future success and resort character of the town, development within this district shall be evaluated based upon its ability to meet the specific purposes of this title and to provide "compelling public benefits which further the public interests" that go beyond any economic benefits to the landowner. Town of Vail Land Use Plan (in part) Chapter 11 -Land Use Plan Goals/Policies 1. General Growth /Development 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 1.2 The quality of the environment including air, water and other natural resources should be protected as the Town grows. . 1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 1.4 The original theme of the old Village Core should be carried into new development in the Village Core through continued implementation of the Urban Design Guide Plan. 1.6 Development proposals on the hillsides should be evaluated on a case by case basis. Limited development may be permitted for some low intensity uses in areas that are not highly visible from the Valley floor. New projects should be carefully controlled and developed with sensitivity to the environment. 1.7 New subdivisions should not be permitted in high geologic hazard areas. 1.8 Recreational and public facility development on National Forest lands may be permitted where no high hazards exist if: a) Community objectives are met as articulated in the Comprehensive Plan. b) The parcel is adjacent to the Town boundaries, with good access. c) The affected neighborhood can be involved in the decision-making process. 1.9 The existing condition and use of National Forest Land (USES) which is exchanged, sold, or otherwise falls into private ownership should remain 3 unchanged. A change in the existing condition and use may be considered if • the change substantially complies with the Vail Comprehensive Plan and achieves a compelling public benefit which furthers the public interest, as determined by the Town Council. (Res. 2 (2003) §1) 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). 2. Skier /Tourist Concerns 2.1 The community should emphasize its role as a destination resort while accommodating day visitors. 2.2 The ski area owner, the business community and the Town leaders should work together closely to make existing facilities and the Town function more efficiently. 2.3 The ski area owner, the business community and the Town leaders should work together to improve facilities for day skiers. 2.4 The community should improve summer recreational options to improve year- round tourism. 2.5 The community should improve non-skier recreational options to improve year-round tourism. • 2.8 Day skier needs for parking and access should be accommodated through creative solutions such as: a) Increase busing from out of town. b) Expanded points of access to the mountain by adding additional base portals. c) Continuing to provide temporary surface parking. d) Addition of structured parking. 3. Commercial 3.4 Commercial growth should be concentrated in existing commercial areas to accommodate both local and visitor needs. 3.5 Entertainment oriented business and cultural activities should be encouraged in the core areas to create diversity. More night-time businesses, on-going events and sanctioned "street happenings" should be encouraged. 4. Village Core / Lionshead 4.1 Future commercial development should continue to occur primarily in existing commercial areas. Future commercial development in the Core areas needs to be carefully controlled to facilitate access and delivery. • 4 • 4.2 Increased density in the Core areas is acceptable so long as the existing character of each area is preserved through implementation of the Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan. 4.3 The ambiance of the Village is important to the identity of Vail and should be preserved. (Scale, alpine character, small town feeling, mountains, natural settings, intimate size, cosmopolitan feeling, environmental quality.) 5. Residential 5.1 Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. 5.4 Residential growth should keep pace with the market place demands for a full range of housing types. 6. Community Services 6.1 Services should keep pace with increased growth. 6.2 The Town of Vail should play a role in future development through balancing growth with services. . 6.3 Services should be adjusted to keep pace with the needs of peak periods. Vail Villaae Master Plan (in oartl Land use categories in Vail Village include the following: Ski Base/Recreation: Located at the base of Vail Mountain in the Golden Peak area and immediately adjacent to Vail Village, this designation is intended to provide for the facilities and services inherent to the operation of a ski area. Uses and activities for these areas are intended to encourage a safe, convenient, and aesthetically- pleasing transition between the ski mountain and surrounding land use categories. The range of uses and activities appropriate in the Ski Base/Recreation land use category may include skier and resort services, ski lifts, ski trails, base facilities, public restrooms, ticket sales, clubs, public plazas, outdoor cultural/art events and sports venue, open spaces, parking and loading/delivery facilities, and residential, retail, and restaurant uses. A major goal of this Plan is to address the Village as a whole and at the same time be sensitive to the opportunities and constraints that may exist on a site specific basis. To facilitate long range planning unique to each area of the Village, ten different sub-areas are delineated in this Plan. Sub-areas were determined based on a number of different considerations. Foremost among these were: • design and site characteristics geographic or physical boundaries land uses and ownership patterns Each of the ten sub-areas have been evaluated relative to the overall goals, objectives, and policies outlined for Vail Village. The potential improvement projects, referred to as sub-area concepts, which have emerged from this evaluation are graphically represented on the Action Plan. These sub-area concepts are physical improvements intended to reinforce the desired physical form of the Village as outlined in the various elements of the Master Plan. The 10 sub-areas (which follow), provide detailed descriptions of each sub-area concept and express the relationship between the specific sub-area concepts and the overall Plan. The applicable goals and objectives are cited for each of the sub area concepts at the end of each description under "special emphasis." The sub-area concepts described in this Section are meant to serve as advisory guidelines for future land use decisions by the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Town Council. Compliance with the sub-area concepts does not assure development approval by the Town. It is important to note that the likelihood of project approval will be greatest for those proposals that can fully comply with the Vail Village Master Plan. The Urban Design Guide Plan includes additional design detail that is to be used in conjunction with the Vail Village Master Plan sub-area concepts. FRONT DOOR SUB-AREA (#111 ""'+r. \ • • The Front Door sub-area plays a critical role in the interface between the ski mountain and the fabric of Vail Village. As the premier guest portal to Vail Mountain, • the Front Door area should reflect in both use and design the world-class stature of the Vail resort and community. The goals for development in this sub-area are as follows: • To provide for ayear-round, world-class guest experience at the interface between Vail Village and the ski mountain. • To provide new and improved guest service facilities at the top of Bridge Street that will not only improve the quality of the entire guest experience, but will increase evening guest retention in Vail Village. • Provide for new below-grade loading and delivery facilities to better serve the Front Door and upper Bridge Street areas, consistent with the overall "dispersed quadrant" approach of the Vail loading and delivery master plan. • To provide a venue for outdoor cultural/art and sporting events and other similar special community events. • Provide for the removal of surface vehicular traffic and parking that currently occurs within the sub-area. • To provide for limited (6-10 dwelling units/acre) medium density residential development. • With the exception of development that may be approved within Sub-Area Concepts 11-1 and 11-2, the balance of the Front Door Sub-Area should remain in a predominantly undeveloped, open space condition. The Front Door Sub-area includes two Sub-Area Concepts. Please refer to the Vail • Village Master Plan Action Plan for a graphic depiction of these concepts. # 11-1 Lodae Exchanae Parcel Limited development of this site provides an opportunity to consolidate and/or remove existing uses and in doing so improve the visual quality of this area. Medium density residential development and associated uses respecting and complimenting the adjacent Lodge at Vail, Lodge Tower, and Vista Bahn ski yard are appropriate. Most parking except temporary guest arrival spaces should be located below grade. Existing mountain and USFS access should be maintained and if feasible placed below grade throughout the parcel. To the extent feasible, service and delivery facilities, including existing service and delivery facilities for the Lodge Tower, the Lodge at Vail, and surrounding commercial uses should be located below grade. A pedestrian/bicycle connection between Willow Circle/Nail Road and the Vista Bahn ski yard should be retained. Development of this sub-area will attract additional traffic and population to this area and may have significant impacts on sub area 1-12 (Willow Circle). # 11-2 The Vista Bahn Park Redevelopment of ski yard should improve and emphasize the connection between the Vista Bahn lift area (the mountain) and the lower skier plaza area (the village). Opportunities exist to re-grade the ski yard to improve access and usefulness of the site. Existing modular ski storage structures in the ski yard should be replaced with new skier/guest service facilities to improve year-round use of the area and to encourage summer season usage. If developed, the scale of a skier/guest service • building should be limited to one-story as viewed from the skier plaza area. • VI. ZONING ANALYSIS The following zoning analysis provides the development potential allowed in the Ski Base Recreation-2 District. Address: 151 Vail Lane Legal Description: Lots 1 and 2, Mill Creek Subdivision, Tract E, Vail Village First Filing, and Unplatted Zoning: Ski Base Recreation - 2 zone districts Land Use Plan Designation: Ski Base Recreation and Vail Village Master Plan Hazards: Areas of 40% Slope Lot Area: 261,685 square feet/6.01 acres Development Standards Allowed Proposed Lot Area (min.): 10,000 sq. ft. 261,685 sq. ft. of buildable area of buildable area Setbacks: As indicated on the > 20' and as indicated on the approved development approved development plan plan Building Height (max.): 43' and as indicated Varies with all buildings on the approved <43' and as indicated development plan on the approved development (Compliance with the plan Vail Village Master Plan is required) Density Control: (du's/ac) 48 du's or 8 du's/ac 13 du's or 2.2 du's/ac (GRFA) As indicated on the 36,500 sq. ft. - approved development plan Site Coverage: As indicated on the As indicated on the approved development approved development plan plan Landscaping and Site Development: As indicated on the As indicated on the approved development approved development plan plan Parking/Loading • Plan and Program: As indicated on the See attached spreadsheet s approved development > 90% of the parking is enclosed plan per the Code requirements VII. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Land Use Zoning North: Mixed Use Development Commercial Core 1 South: USFS N/A East: Residential Primary/Secondary West: Residential Primary/Secondary VIII. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Amendment to the Official Zoning Map of the Town of Vail (zoning of annexed areas) Chapter 3, Administration and Enforcement, Title 12, Zoning Title, of the Vail Town Code authorizes amendments to the Official Zoning Map of the Town of Vail. Pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendments, in part, "an application to amend the district boundaries of the Zoning Map may be initiated by petifion of any resident or property owner in the Town." Furthermore, Section 12-3-7 C prescribes the criteria and findings the Planning and • Environmental Commission and Town Council shall consider with respect to a request to amend the Zoning Map. The applicant is seeking a recommendation of approval to zone the Front Door USFS Land Exchange Parcel (A complete legal description has been attached for reference (Attachment A)) to the Ski Base Recreation-2 (SBR-2) District. According to Section 12-3-7 C, of the Vail Town Code, Before acting on an application for a zone district boundary amendment, the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council shall consider fhe following factors with respect to the requested zone district boundary amendment: 1. The extent to which the zone district amendment is consistent with all the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town; and Section V of this memorandum outlines the goals and policies that are relevant to the proposed zoning of the Front Door USFS land exchange parcel. The requested zoning specifically implements the Vail Land Use Plan land use designation and Vail Village Master Plan of Ski Base Recreation which states, in part, that, • "Located at the base of Vail Mountain in the Golden Peak area and immediately adjacent to Vail Village, this designation is intended to provide for the facilities and services inherent to the operation of a ski • area. Uses and activities for these areas are intended to encourage a safe, convenient, and aesthetically-pleasing transition between the ski mountain and surrounding land use categories. The range of uses and activities appropriate in the Ski Base/Recreation land use category may include skier and resort services, ski lifts, ski trails, base facilities, public restrooms, ticket sales, clubs, public plazas, outdoor cultural/art events and sports venue, open spaces, parking and loading/delivery facilities, and residential, retail, and restaurant uses. " According to Section 12-8E-1: Purpose; Ski Base Recreation-2 District, "The ski base/recreation 2 district is intended to provide sites for facilities, activities and uses necessary for and appurtenant to the operation of a ski mountain. A variety of other facilities, uses and activities, including, but not limited to, residential, public and semipublic uses and special community events typically associated with a vibrant resort community are also permitted within the district. The ski base/recreation 2 district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities appropriate to permitted and conditional uses throughout the district. !n order to achieve this objective and to ensure compatibility with adjacent land uses, all permitted uses, development and activity within the district shall be subject to approval of a comprehensive development plan in accordance with the provisions of this article. Furthermore, due to the likelihood of this . district being located at the base of Vail Mountain, and upon some of the most critical and important lands to the future success and resort character of the town, development within this district shall be evaluated based upon its ability to meet the specific purposes of this title and to provide "compelling public benefits which further the public interests" that go beyond any economic benefits to the landowner. This Zone District was specifically developed to provide incentives for properties to redevelop. The ultimate goal of these incentives is to create an economically vibrant lodging, housing, and commercial core area. The incentives in this Zone District include increases in allowable gross residential floor area, building height, and density over the previously established zoning in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan study area. The primary goal of the incentives is to create economic conditions favorable to inducing private redevelopment consistent with the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Additionally, the incentives are created to help finance public off-site improvements adjacent to redevelopment projects. With any development/redevelopment proposal taking advantage of the incentives created herein, the following amenities will be evaluated: streetscape improvements, pedestrian/bicycle access, public plaza redevelopment, public art, roadway improvements, and similar improvements. " The proposed zoning is consistent and compatible with the Vail • Comprehensive Plan and the Town's development objectives. 10 • 2. The extent to which the zone district amendment is suitable with the existing and potential land uses on the site and existing and potential surrounding land uses as set out in the Town's adopted planning documents; and The Ski Base Recreation - 2 District establishes land use regulations that are consistent with the proposed uses on the parcel and are suitable with the existing and potential surrounding land uses. The proposed use of the property will remain as a ski mountain portal to Vail Mountain, albeit in a much improved condition and substantially increased level of quality. The zone district boundary amendment is consistent with existing and potential uses on surrounding properties. According to the Vail Land Use Plan, the adjoining land use designations include Village Master Plan and Low Density Residential. Pursuant to the Plan, the existing land use designation is Ski Base Recreation. The area governed by the Vail Village Master Plan is designated as Village Master Plan. A review of the Zoning Regulations demonstrates that the uses allowed in the Ski Base Recreation - 2 zone district are compatible with both the intent and purposes of the surrounding land use designations. 3. The extent to which the zone district amendment presents a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses consistent with municipal development objectives; and The Ski Base Recreation - 2 District is consistent with the existing and proposed use of the property. The proposed zone district implements specific goals of the Vail Land Use Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan. Staff believes that the proposed zoning presents a harmonious, convenient, and workable relationship with land uses in the area consistent with the existing and proposed use of the property. For example, the parcel in question is located immediately adjacent to the commercial area of Vail Village. As such, according to Sub-area #11 of the Vail Village Master Plan, the Front Door USFS land exchange parcel is identified as a location for a centralized loading and delivery facility. To that end, the Ski Base Recreation - 2 zone district allows "private or public off street loading facilities" as a permitted use. Additionally, the Vail Village Master Plan states that a goal of the Plan is "to provide a venue for outdoor cultural/art and sporting events and other similar special community events." In an effort to achieve that goal, the Ski Base Recreation - 2 zone district places an emphasis on the need to accommodate special community events, including, but not limited to, ski races, festivals, concerts, and recreational, cultural and educational programs and associated improvements/facilities, subject to the issuance of a special events license, on sites located within the District. 4. The extent to which the zone district amendment provides for the growth of an orderly viable community and does not constitute spot • zoning as the amendment serves the best interests of the community as a whole; and 11 The proposed zoning establishes consistent zoning for the property. This • zoning will create a zone district consistent with the existing and proposed use of the property. The proposed zoning will provide for the development of an orderly viable community consistent with the Town's development interests as expressed in the Vail Village Master Plan. Staff believes that this amendment furthers the development objectives of the Town and serves the best interest of the community as a whole. 5. The extent to which the zone district amendment results in adverse or beneficial impacts on the natural environment, including but not limited to water quality, air quality, noise, vegetation, riparian corridors, hillsides and other desirable natural features; and The proposed zoning will not significantly alter the existing character or uses allowed on the site. As such, staff does not for see any adverse impacts on the natural environment to include water quality, air quality, noise, vegetation, etc. In fact, given the language as adopted for the detailed recommendations for the site, it could be reasonably expected that beneficial impacts could result from the zoning and redevelopment of the site. For example, an intended outcome of the redevelopment of this site, according to the Vail Village Master Plan, is to address the following goals: # 11-1 Lodge Exchange Parcel • Limited development of this site provides an opportunity to consolidate and/or remove existing uses and in doing so improve the visual quality of this area. Medium density residential development and associated uses respecting and complimenting the adjacent Lodge at Vail, Lodge Tower, and Vista Bahn ski yard are appropriate. Most parking except temporary guest arrival spaces should be located below grade. Existing mountain and USFS access should be maintained and if feasible placed below grade throughout the parcel. To the extent feasible, service and delivery facilities, including existing service and delivery facilities for the Lodge Tower, the Lodge at Vail, and surrounding commercial uses should be located below grade. A pedestrian/bicycle connection between Willow CircleNail Road and the Vista Bahn ski yard should be retained. Development of this sub-area will attract additional traffic and population to this area and may have significant impacts on sub area 1-12 (Willow Circle). # 11-2 The Vista Bahn Park Redevelopment of ski yard should improve and emphasize the connection between the Vista Bahn lift area (the mountain) and the lower skier plaza area (the village). Opportunities exist to re-grade the ski yard to improve access and usefulness of the site. Existing modular ski storage structures in the ski yard should be replaced with new skier/guest service facilities to improve year-round use of the area and to encourage summer season usage. If developed, the scale of a skier/guest service • building should be limited to one-story as viewed from the skier plaza area. 12 • 6. The extent to which the zone district amendment is consistent with the purpose statement of the proposed zone district. The Ski Base Recreation - 2 (SBR-2) District is proposed for the subject property. The proposed zone district is consistent with the intended purpose of that zone district. A copy of the purpose statement of the zone district is provided in Section V of this memorandum. 7. The extent to which the zone district amendment demonstrates how conditions have changed since the zoning designation of the subject property was adopted and is no longer appropriate. As this site has recently been annexed into the Town of Vail municipal boundaries, zoning does not presently exist on the site. Therefore, staff does not belive that this criteria is relevant to this application. 8. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission and/or Council deem applicable to the proposed rezoning. IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval of an amendment to the Official Town of Vail Zoning Map, pursuant to Chapter 3, Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, to zone Vail's Front Door Land Exchange Parcel to the Vail Town Council. Staff's recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VIII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, subject to the following findings: "Before recommending and/or granting an approval of an application for a zone district boundary amendment the Planning & Environmental Commission and the Town Council shall make the following findings with respect to the requested amendment: That the amendment is consistent with the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and compatible with the development objectives of the Town; and 2. That the amendment is compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses and appropriate for the surrounding areas; and 3. That the amendment promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that conserves and enhances • its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of fhe highest quality." 13 X. ATTACHMENTS • A. Legal Description B. Vicinity Map • • 14 • REQUEST TO APPLY ZONING Vail's Front Door/USFS Exchange Parcel March 6, 2006 Background/Purpose of this Request The purpose of this request is to apply Ski Base/Recreation 2 zoning to a 5.13 acre parcel of land commonly referred to as the "USFS exchange parcel," as more particularly described in the attached legal description (the "Property"). The Property constitutes part of the site for Vail Resort's "Front Door" project at the base of Vail Mountain, which will otherwise be located partially on land currently owned by an affiliate of the applicant (Lots 1 and 2, Mill Creek Subdivision), which land is already zoned Ski Base/Recreation 2 in furtherance of the "Front Door" project. The zoning of the Property as Ski Base/Recreation 2 will facilitate suitable development of the ski base area and create a compelling public benefit, furthering the pubic interest, for Vail Village as a world class ski resort community. The Vail Corporation ("VC"), an affiliate of the applicant, Vail Resorts Development Company, has entered into a land exchange agreement with the owner of the Property, the United States of America, acting by and through the Forest Service, Department of Agriculture ("USFS"). The closing of the land exchange agreement will result in the conveyance of the Property in fee to VC. With the conveyance of the Property to VC expected to occur in the coming few weeks, it is appropriate for the Town to now consider the annexation petition (previously submitted) and this zoning application for the Property. However, because the USFS is the owner of the Property as of the date of this application, the USFS and the applicant mutually require that final zoning approval (and final annexation approval) do not occur until such time as the Property is conveyed to VC. Accordingly, this application is made subject to the condition that the second reading of the zoning ordinance (and second reading of the annexation ordinance) will not occur prior to the conveyance of the Property to VC. :J Vail's Front Door Application for Zoning Review Criteria • Before acting on an application for a zone district boundary amendment, the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested zone district boundary amendment: (1) The extent to which the zone district amendment is consistent with all the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town; and Analvsis: In 2003 the Town of Vail approved amendments to the Vail Land Use Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan, the purpose of which was to establish goals and policies necessary to implement the redevelopment of the Vail Village portal to Vail Mountain (commonly referred to as Vail's "Front Door Project"). Following these master plan amendments the Town of Vail adopted a new zone district -Ski Base/Recreation 2. The purpose of this zone district, among other things, is to establish development standards that will implement the revitalization and redevelopment goals of the Town. Applying the Ski Base/Recreation 2 zone district to this area is directly consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Town's Land Use Plan and Vail Village Master Plan. (2) The extent to which the zone district amendment is suitable with the existing and potential land uses on the site and existing and potential surrounding land uses as set out in the town's adopted planning documents; and Analvsis: The proposed rezoning will facilitate the upgrade and revitalization of the "Front Door" to the Vail Village. The proposal will allow the removal of some unsightly and unorganized uses and replace those with uses which are compatible with the surrounding residential and commercial activities and consistent with the operation of a ski mountain. (3) The extent to which the zone district amendment presents a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses consistent with municipal development objectives; and Analvsis: The proposed Ski Base/Recreation 2 zone district allows for development and land uses typically associated with ski mountain base areas. The proposed zoning will also establish a framework for the upgrading and revitalization of the "Front Door" to Vail Mountain. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the goals and policies of the Town and presents a harnonious, convenient, and workable relationship with land uses in the area. • Vail's Front Door Application for Zoning • (4) The extent to which the zone district amendment provides for the growth of an orderly viable community and does not constitute spot zoning as the amendment serves the best interests of the community as a whole; and Analysis: The proposed rezoning provides for the growth and development of an orderly viable community consistent with the Town's development interests. Given the size of the Property and its natural integration into the ski base, the context and current use of adjacent property in concert with the ski base, and the proposed "Front Door" development of the ski base to further enhance Vail Mountain operations, the proposed rezoning does not constitute spot zoning. The intended uses in this zone district, including ski lifts, skier services and ticketing, loading and delivery functions and other compatible uses, will promote beneficial operation of the ski base area while improving the overall access to and complementing the existing uses in Vail Village. (5) The extent to which the zone district amendment results in adverse or beneficial impacts on the natural environment, including, but not limited to, water quality, air quality, noise, vegetation, riparian corridors, hillsides and other desirable natural features; and Analysis: The Ski Base/Recreation 2 district outlines submittal requirements and • development review procedures that include, among other things, the evaluation of potential impacts on environmental considerations. Given the nature of the Property and based on the Environmental Impact Report that has been prepared for Vail's "Front Door" project, the proposed development will not adversely impact the factors outlined above. The development of the "Front Door" project will result in beneficial impacts resulting from properly designed and constructed facilities, which will be developed to the Town's development standards. (6) The extent to which the zone district amendment is consistent with the purpose statement of the proposed zone district; and Analysis: The stated purpose of the Ski Base/Recreation 2 district is "to provide sites for facilities, activities and uses necessary for and appurtenant to the operation of a ski mountain. A variety of other facilities, uses and activities, including, but not limited to, residential, public and semipublic uses and special community events typically associated with a vibrant resort community are also permitted within the district". The Ski Base Recreation 2 district is proposed for land located at the base of Vail Mountain immediately adjacent to Vail Village. The planned "Front Door" project is consistent with this zoning application and the intended purpose of the zone district. • Vail's Front Door Application for Zoning (7) The extent to which the zone district amendment demonstrates how conditions • have changed since the zoning designation of the subject property was adopted and is no longer appropriate; and Analvsis: This criteria is not relevant given the fact that the Property has not been in the Town of Vail and as such has not previously been zoned by the Town. The Property will be integrated with other properties in the ski base area that are already zoned Ski Base/Recreation 2 district in furtherance of appropriate development of the "Front Door" to Vail Mountain. • C7 Vail's Front Door 4 Application for Zoning (ATTACHMENT A) • PARCEL DESCRIPTION: LOTS 1 AND 4, SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 80 WEST, OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO, AS ESTABLISHED BY T}iE DEPENDENT RESURVEYS AND SURVEYS COMPLETED BY THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT DATED FEBRUARY 3, 2005 (LOT 4), AND DECEMBER 30, 1988 (LOT I ), AND ALSO BEING DESCRIBED ALTERNATIVELY AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST 1/16 CORNER OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 80 WEST, OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO; WHENCE THE NORTH 1/] 6 CORNER OF SECTION 7 AND SECTION 8 BEARS N89C743'S9"W A DISTANCE OF 1322.52 FEET, SAID L[NE BEING THE BASIS OF BEARING FOR THIS DESCRIPTION. THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 8 (ALSO BEING CO-EXTENSIVE WITH THE BOUNDARY OF THE FORMER VAIL VILLAGE, FIRST FILING, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED AUGUST 6, 1962 AT RECEPTION NUMBER 96382) THE FOLLOWING TWO COURSES: 1) S00°21'52"W 165.00 FEET 2) S00°21'52"W 277.76 FEET THENCE ALONG SAID EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 8 (ALSO BEING CO-EXTENSIVE WITH THE BOUNDARY OF PARCEL 1, GOLDEN PEAK SK] BASE AND RECREATION DISTRICT (RECEPTION NUMBER 352168)), S00°21'52"W 57.24 FEET; THENCE N89°45'07"W 247.96 FEET: THENCE N33°20'55"W 282.22 FEET ; THENCE N89°45'45"W 488.32 FEET; THENCE N00°14'21"E 265.13 FEET TO A POINT ON T}iE NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 8; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE (AGAIN ALSO BEING CO-EXTENSTVE WITH SAID BOUNDARY OF THE FORMER VAIL VILLAGE, FIRST FILING ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED AUGUST 6, 1962 AT RECEPTION NUMBER 96382) S89°43'59"E 100.00 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF MILL CREEK SUBDIVISION, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED NOVEMBER 6, 2000 AT RECEPTION NUMBER 743366; THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID MILL CREEK SUBDNISION S00°15'18"W 165.37 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID MILL CREEK SUBDNISION; THENCE ALONG 7'HE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID MILL CREEK SUBDIVISION S89°45'57"E 131.89 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID MILL CREEK SUBDIVISION S89°46'28"E 413.26 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID MILL CREEK SUBDNISION; THENCE ALONG THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID MILL CREEK • SUBDNISION N00°21'19"E 165.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 8, SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE NORTHEAST CORNER OP SAID MILL CREEK SUBDIVISION; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE (AGAIN ALSO BEING CO-EXTENSIVE WITH THE BOUNDARY OF THE FORMER VAIL VILLAGE, FIRST FILING, RECEPTION NUMBER 96382) S89°43'59"E 248.13 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, SAID PARCEL CONTAINING 5.13 ACRES MORE OR LESS. • O ~- 0 r~ L~ e . Item # 7 will be withdrawn and item #8 will be tabled at the meeting. 7. A request for a final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-7H-5 Conditional Uses: Generally, to allow for a seasonal use or structure for conferences and conventions, located in Tract A, Lot 4, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 1 Addition 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0030) Applicant: Lion Square Lodge, represented by Bill Anderson Planner: Bill Gibson 8. A request for a final review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7H-7, Major Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the renovation of the Lion's Square Lodge North, located at 660 West Lionshead Place/Lot 8, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. ,(PEC06-0019) Applicant: Lion's Square Lodge North Condominium Association, represented by Viele Development Planner: Bill Gibson • e • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 8, 2006 SUBJECT: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for proposed amendments to Chapters 12-21, Hazard Regulations, 14-7, Geologic/Environmental Hazards, and 14-10, Design Review Standards and Guidelines, Vail Town Code, to include wildfire hazard in the Hazard Regulations, and to require defensible space and Class A roofs in high and extreme wildfire hazard zones, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0029) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Rachel Friede I. SUMMARY • The applicant, Town of Vail, is requesting a worksession to inform the Planning and Environmental Commission that Town Staff will present proposed wildfire regulations at the Commission's June 12th PEC public hearing. At that meeting, the Commission will be asked to make a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for proposed amendments to Chapters 12-21, Hazard Regulations, 14-7, Geologic/Environmental Hazards, and 14-10, Design Review Standards and Guidelines, Vail Town Code. Since this is a worksession, Staff requests the Planning and Environmental Commission listen to the brief presentation and ask any questions related to the proposed wildfire regulations. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The danger of wildfire in Vail has been a pressing issue for many years. There are the intertwined issues of dealing with the pine beetle, creating town wide defensible space and an increase in development adjacent to Forest Service properties. Various departments within the Town of Vail, including Fire, Planning, Building, Public Works and Environment Health have been collaborating on the development of wildfire regulations. The proposed text amendments will: • • Add a wildfire hazard Section to the Town's existing Hazard Regulations • Adopt a Wildfire Hazard Map as part of the Town of Vail Master Hazard Map (See Attachment A) • Outline the triggers for complying with the regulations • Require a mitigation plan, including a defensible space plan, conducted by • a wildfire specialist in the high and extreme wildfire hazard zones • Require Class A roofing materials and discourage wood shake and shingle roofs in the high and extreme wildfire hazard zones Since this is a worksession, Staff asks that the Planning and Environmental Commission listen to the presentation and ask any questions about the Wildfire Regulations. Staff also asks that the Planning and Environmental Commission table this item for further review at its June 12, 2006 public hearing. III. BACKGROUND Since last year, the Town of Vail Fire, Planning, Building, Public Works and the Environment Health Departments have been collaborating on the development of wildfire regulations. Staff has been working on these regulations as one part of the solution to potential wildfires. Other work includes controlled burns at various critical points on the border of the Town. The Fire Department also leads a public information campaign and offers free wildfire hazard evaluations for any property in Town. Staff feels the public will benefit from these proposed regulations, as the regulations will increase awareness of wildfire hazards and provide methods to mitigate these hazards. IV. ROLES OF REVIEWING BODIES Order of Review: The Planning and Environmental Commission review text • amendment applications and forwards a recommendation to the Town Council. The Town Council will then review the text amendment application. Planning and Environmental Commission: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for the review of a text amendment application, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, and forwarding of a recommendation to the Vail Town Council. Design Review Board: The Design Review Board has no review authority over a text amendment to the Vail Town Code. However, since the Wildfire Regulations may affect the way the Design Review Board reviews applications, Town Staff will make a presentation to the Design Review Board to keep them informed of potential changes. Town Council: The Vail Town Council is responsible for final approval, approval with modifications, or denial of a text amendment application, pursuant to Section 12- 3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code. The Vail Town Council has the authority to hear and decide appeals from any decision, determination, or interpretation by the Planning and Environmental Commission and/or Design Review Board. The Vail Town Council may also call up a decision of the Planning and Environmental Commission and/or Design • Review Board. ~.. • Staff: The Town Staff facilitates the application review process. Staff reviews the submitted application materials for completeness and general compliance with the appropriate requirements of the Town Code. Staff also provides the Planning and Environmental Commission with a memorandum containing a description and background of the application; an evaluation of the application concerning the criteria and findings outlined by the Vail Town Code; and a recommendation of approval, approval with modifications, or denial. V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Town of Vail Zonino Reoulations (Title 12. Vail Town Code) Chapter 12-1: Title, Purpose and Applicability 12-1-2: Purpose A. General: These regulations are enacted for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town, and to promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that will conserve and enhance its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of high quality. • 12-3: Administration and Enforcement 12-3-7: AMENDMENT.• C. Criteria And Findings: 2. Prescribed Regulations Amendment: a. Factors, Enumerated: Before acting on an application for an amendment to the regulations prescribed in this title, the planning and environmental commission and town council shall consider the following factors with respecf to the requested text amendment: (1) The extent to which the text amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the zoning regulations; and (2) The extent to which the text amendment would better implement and better achieve the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town; and (3) The extent to which the text amendment demonstrates how conditions have substantially changed since the adoption of the subject regulation and how the existing regulation is no longer appropriate or is inapplicable; and (4) The extent to which the text amendment provides a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal development objectives; and (5) Such other factors and criteria the commission and/or council deem applicable to the proposed text amendment. • r Town of Vail Development Standards Handbook (Title 14, Vail Town Codel Chapter 14-1: Administration • 14-1-1: Purpose and Intent: It is the purpose of these rules, regulations, and standards to ensure the general health, safety, and welfare of the community. These rules, regulations, and standards are intended to ensure safe and efficient development within the town for pedestrians, vehicular traffic, emergency response traffic, and the community at large. The development standards will help protect property values, ensure the aesthetic quality of the community and ensure adequate development of property within the Town. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission listen to the presentation, ask any pertinent questions and table this item to its June 12, 2006 public hearing. VII. ATTACHMENTS A. Wildfire Hazard Map C] • 0 0 m N ~_ M '~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ O "~ ~ ~ `~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ n ~ ~ p. N ~ ~ ~ to ./~ r~ +r~. MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 12, 2006 SUBJECT: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for amendments to Section 12-7H-5, Conditional Uses; Generally (On all Levels of a Building or Outside of a Building), to allow for seasonal use or structures as a conditional use in Lionshead Mixed Use I District; Section 12-7H-18, Mitigation of Development Impacts, to clarify the inclusion of employee housing as a mitigation of development impacts; Section 12-8A-3, Conditional Uses, to allow for ski runs as a conditional use of the Agricultural and Open Space District; Section 12-8C-3, Conditional Uses, to allow for ski lifts not including loading and unloading areas as a conditional use of the Natural Area Preservation District; Subsection 12-18-56, Density Control, to clarify limitations on structures which do not conform to density controls; Chapter 14-3, Residential Access, Driveway and Parking Standards, to clarify standards for access, driveway and parking for commercial properties; and Chapter 14-6, Grading Standards, to clarify requirements for retaining walls, Vail Town Code, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0026) • Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Rachel Friede SUMMARY The applicant, Town of Vail, is requesting that the Planning and Environmental Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council regarding the proposed text amendments to Section 12-7H-5, Conditional Uses; Generally (On all Levels of a Building or Outside of a Building), to allow for seasonal uses or structures as a conditional use in Lionshead Mixed Use I District; Section 12-7H-18, Mitigation of Development Impacts, to clarify the inclusion of employee housing as a mitigation of development impacts; Section 12-8A-3, Conditional Uses, to allow for ski runs as a conditional use of the Agricultural and Open Space District; Section 12-8C-3, Conditional Uses, to allow for ski lifts not including loading and unloading areas as a conditional use of the Natural Area Preservation District; Subsection 12-18-5B, Density Control, to clarify limitations on structures which do not conform to density controls; Chapter 14-3, Residential Access, Driveway and Parking Standards, to clarify standards for access, driveway and parking for commercial properties; and Chapter 14-6, Grading Standards, to clarify requirements for retaining walls. Based upon Staff's review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission forward a recommendation • of approval to the Vail Town Council for the proposed text amendments, subject to the findings noted in Section VII of this memorandum. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Throughout the development and design review process, the Planning staff has noted problems with specific code sections, many of which have occurred through zoning code amendments, changes in procedures, or errors in codification. Therefore, Staff periodically returns to the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) and the Town Council to "clean-up" the Sign, Zoning, and Subdivision Regulations, and Development Standards Handbook. Compared to the comprehensive code clean up that occurred last fall, these changes to the code are minor in comparison. Staff requests that the PEC review these amendments and recommend approval to the Town Council. BACKGROUND On October 24, 2005, the Planning and Environmental Commission forwarded a recommendation to Town Council of approval with conditions regarding a major Code clean-up initiative. Council approved Ordinance 29, Series of 2005, and a document with about 200 pages of changes to the Vail Town Code. Staff realizes the importance of code clean up and will continue to bring amendments to the Code before PEC and Town Council. On April 24, 2006, the Planning and Environmental Commission tabled this item due to an administrative error. IV. ROLES OF REVIEWING BODIES Order of Review: Generally, text amendment applications will be reviewed by the • Planning and Environmental Commission and the Commission will forward a recommendation to the Town Council. The Town Council will then review the text amendment application. Planning and Environmental Commission: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for the review of a text amendment application, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, and forwarding of a recommendation to the Vail Town Council. Design Review Board: The Design Review Board has no review authority over a text amendment to the Vail Town Code. Town Council: The Vail Town Council is responsible for final approval, approval with modifications, or denial of a text amendment application, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code. The Vail Town Council has the authority to hear and decide appeals from any decision, determination, or interpretation by the Planning and Environmental Commission and/or Design Review Board. The Vail Town Council may also call up a decision of the Planning and Environmental Commission and/or Design Review Board. Staff: The Town Staff facilitates the application review process. Staff reviews the submitted • application materials for completeness and general compliance with the appropriate requirements of the Town Code. Staff also provides the Planning and Environmental Commission with a memorandum containing a description and background of the application; an evaluation of the application concerning the criteria and findings outlined by the Vail Town Code; and a recommendation of approval, approval with modifications, • or denial. V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Town of Vail Zonino Reoulations (Title 12. Vail Town Codel Chapter 12-1: Title, Purpose and Applicability 12-1-2: Purpose A. General: These regulations are enacted for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town, and to promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that will conserve and enhance its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of high quality. Chapter 12-3: Administration and Enforcement 12-3-7: Amendment C. Criteria And Findings: 2. Prescribed Regulations Amendment: a. Factors, Enumerated: Before acting on an application for an amendment to the regulations prescribed in this title, the planning and environmental commission and town council shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested text amendment: • (1) The extent to which the text amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the zoning regulations; and (2) The extent to which the text amendment would better implement and better achieve the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town; and (3) The extent to which the text amendment demonstrates how conditions have substantially changed since the adoption of the subject regulation and how the existing regulation is no longer appropriate ar is inapplicable; and (4) The extent to which the text amendment provides a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal development objectives; and (5) Such other factors and criteria the commission and/or council deem applicable to the proposed text amendment. Town of Vail Development Standards Handbook (Title 14. Vail Town Code) Chapter 14-1: Administration 14-1-1: Purpose and Intent: It is the purpose of these rules, regulations, and standards to ensure the general health, safety, and welfare of the community. These rules, regulations, and standards are intended to ensure safe and efficient development within the town for pedestrians, vehicular traffic, emergency response traffic, and the community • at large. The development standards will help protect property values, ensure the aesthetic quality of the community and ensure adequate development of property within the Town. VI. PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS Title 12: Development Standards Handbook • Issue: "Seasonal Use or structure" is defined in Section 12-2-2 as "a temporary covering erected to accommodate or extend educational, recreational, and cultural activities. Such temporary coverings may not be in place for more than seven (7) consecutive months of any twelve (12) month period. For the purposes of this Title, a seasonal use or structure shall not constitute site coverage and shall not be subject to building bulk control standards. Any seasonal use or structure is subject to design review." Many properties in Lionshead have requested tents in the summer, mainly for special events such as weddings. The Town has allowed a provision for obtaining a conditional use permit for such tents in the past, citing that this use is determined to be similar to conditional uses described in the Section below, 12-7H-5. Staff feels that allowing "Seasonal Use or Structure" as a conditional use will ensure that the definition of such is honored and the proper requirements are attached to the conditional use permit. Chapter 7: Commercial and Business Districts Article 7H: Lionshead Mixed Use 1 (LMU-1) District Section 12-7H-5: Conditional Uses; Generally (On All Levels Of A Building Or Outside Of A Building): The following conditional uses shall be permitted, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of chapter 16 of this title: Bed and breakfast as further regulated by Section 12-14-18 of this Title. Brew pubs. • Coin operated laundries. Commercial storage. Private outdoor recreation facilities, as a primary use. Public buildings, grounds, and facilities. Public or private parking lots. Public park and recreation facilities. Public utility and public service uses. Seasonal use or structure. Single-family residential dwellings. Ski lifts and tows. Television stations. Two-family residential dwellings. Additional uses determined to be similar to conditional uses described in this section, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-3-4 of this Title. Issue: Staff requires that mitigation of development impacts include employee housing. Therefore, staff feels that Section 12-7H-18 should include "inclusion of employee housing" in the listing of potential mitigation of development impacts. This change should occur to clarify the inclusion of employee housing in any development applicant within the district. Section 12-7H-18: Mitigation of Development Impacts: Property owners/developers shall also be responsible for mitigating direct impacts of their development on public infrastructure and in all cases, mitigation shall bear a reasonable relation to the development impacts. Impacts may be determined based on . reports prepared by qualified consultants. The extent of mitigation and public amenity improvements shall be balanced with the goals of redevelopment and will be determined by the Planning and Environmental Commission in review of development projects and conditional use permits. Mitigation of impacts may include, but is not limited to, the following: inclusion of employee housing, roadway improvements, pedestrian walkway improvements, streetscape improvements, stream tract/bank improvements, • public art improvements, and similar improvements. The intent of this section is to only require mitigation for large-scale redevelopment/development projects which produce substantial off site impacts. Issue: The Agricultural and Open Space (A) District includes the "Bridge to Nowhere" which has ' commonly been used as a ski run. The A District already has "ski lifts and tows" as a conditional use, but adding "runs" as a conditional use will allow the Town to properly regulate runs in the A District. It will also make the lower ski runs adjacent to Cascade Village legally conforming. Chapter 8: Open Space and Recreation Districts Article 8A: Agricultural and Open Space {O) District Section 12-8A-3: Conditional Uses: The following conditional uses shall be permitted, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title: Any use within public parks, recreation areas, and open spaces which involves assembly of more than two hundred (200) persons together in one building or group of buildings, or in one recreation area or other public recreational facility. Cemeteries. Churches, rectories, and related structures. Low power subscription radio facilities. Private golf, tennis, swimming and riding clubs, and hunting and fishing lodges. Public and private schools and colleges. • Semipublic and institutional uses, such as convents and religious retreats. Ski lifts, ana~-tows and runs. Type ll employee housing units (EHU) as provided in Chapter 13 of this Title. WeII water treatment facility. Issue: The Natural Area Preservation District (NAP) already has a ski lift running through one portion of this zone district in the Cascade Village area. The base of the lift is in SDD #4 but the lift line and towers are a legally nonconforming land use in this district. In order to make this land use legally conforming, staff proposes that "Ski lifts, not including lift access points, tows and runs" be included as a conditional use in NAP. Tows and runs were added to create similar language to other land uses in other districts. Staff feels that because NAP District land borders Vail Mountain, this will allow the Mountain to legally allow skiing in these areas to access lift loading areas. Article 8C: Natural Area Preservation (NAP) District Section 12-8C-3: Conditional Uses: The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the NAP District, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title: Equestrian trails, used only to access National forest system lands. Interpretive nature walks. Parking, when used in conjunction with a permitted or conditional use. Paved and unpaved, nonmotorized, bicycle paths and pedestrian walkways. Picnic tables and informal seating areas. Ski lifts, tows and runs, not including lift loading and unloading areas. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses and necessary for the operation thereof, with the exception of buildings. Issue: Regulations regarding improvements to structures which do not conform to density controls have been misinterpreted. The term density controls includes GRFA requirements as well as requirements for the number of dwelling units per acre. Staff has interpreted density controls to include both of these requirements, while certain applicants have construed density controls to only include GRFA. Staff wishes to clarify this portion of the Code in order to eliminate any misunderstanding. Chapter 12-18: Nonconforming Sites, Uses, Structures And Site Improvements: Section 12-18-5: Structures and Site Improvement: Structures and site improvements lawfully established prior to the effective date hereof which do not conform to the development standards prescribed by this Title for the district in which they are situated maybe continued. Such structures or site improvements maybe enlarged only in accordance with the following limitations: B. Density Control: Structures which do not conform to density controls (includes GRFA and dwelling units/acre) maybe enlarged, only if the total gross residential floor area of the enlarged structure does not exceed the total gross residential floor area of the preexisting nonconforming structure. ISSUE: An omission in the Development Standards Handbook has led to a lack of regulation for commercial properties regarding access, driveway and parking standards. The Public Works and Fire Departments have used the Multiple Family column in the table below as a means of regulation. However, codifying the commercial requirements will allow Public Works and Fire to require these regulations related to access, driveway and parking. Title 14: Develoament Standards Handbook Standard Chapter 3. Residential and Commercial Access, Driveway and Parking Standards Table 1: Driveway/Feeder Road Min. Width Normal (Detail 1) Min. Width 90° corner (cross-over) (Detail 2) Min. Width Entrance/Curb-cut (Detail 1) Driveway/Feeder Road Sta ndards Single-family, Two- Multiple Family family, -access to 4 to 11 Primary/Secondary dwelling units -access to not more than -feeder road only 3 dwelling units (including EHUs) -structures and all portions thereof within 150' from edge of street pavement 12' 20' -Access from feeder road to units shall comply with single- familyrequirements contained herein 15' 24' 16' 24' (flare to 16') (flare to 24' with 10' curb- return radius) Multiple Family and Commercial -access to more than 11 dwelling units and/or commercial properties -feeder road only 22' -Access from feeder to units shall comply with single- familyrequirements contained herein 24' 28' (flare to 28' with 15' curb- return radius) • • • Max. Width 24' head in 36' 36' Entrance/Curb-cut 148' back out I I (Detail 3) • Min. Grade 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% Centerline I (Detail 4) Max. Grade 10% unheated 9% unheated 9% unheated Centerline 12% heated 12% heated 12% heated (Detail 4) 16% heated and engineered with flat recovery areas Max. Grade 8% unheated 8% unheated 8% unheated Centerline 12% heated 12% heated 10% heated Corner/Cross-over (Detail 2) Max. cross-slope grade 18% 8% 8% (Detail 1) 1 1 Entry angle 45° 70° 70° min. deflection for first 30' of driveway length (Detail 5) Max. centerline break-over 14% { 6% 4% grade (Detail 6) Max. grade at edge of public 8% 6% 4% road asphalt 1 ~ 1 (Detail 4) Max. length of max. grade at 10' 15' 30' edge of public road asphalt 1 1 (Detail 4) ~ Min. centerline turning radius ~ 20' 30' 1 40' r~ U (Detail 7) ISSUE: Staff is recommending changes to the Retaining Wall section of Title 14 in order to better define requirements for Retaining Wall design and review. The proposed changes further clarify current design/review practices and also better define when a retaining wall is required to be designed by a professional engineer(as regulated by the Town of Vail adopted Building Code). Specific requirements for engineered submittals have been added in order to clarify expectations to the applicant. Chapter 14-6: Grading Standards Retaining Walls (General) All retaining walls are reviewed by the Design Review Board or the Administrator to determine compatibility to the existing topography and the materials in use. Retaining walls shall not exceed an exposed face height of six (6) feet. Within a front setback, retaining walls shall not exceed an exposed face height of three (3) feet, unless related to access to a structure constructed on excessive slopes (in excess of thirty (30) percent). Retaining walls associated with a street located within a public right-of-way or access to an underground covered parking structure are exempt from these height limits, but must be approved by the Design Review Board. Retaining walls shall be located a minimum of two (2) feet from adjacent private properly boundaries and should be ten (10) feet from the edge of a public street unless otherwise approved by the Town Engineer. • All retaining walls over four (4) feet in height, measured from the bottom of a footing to the top of wall as per the adopted Town of Vail Building Code, shall be engineered and stamped by a licensed Colorado Professional Engineer (P.E. stamp) ~°^~ ~~r° <, ° ~ ct~ except in the right-of-way, where retaining walls over three (3) feet in height, measured in the same manner, shall require a P.E. Stamp. • All retaining walls requiring a P.E. stamp shall be required to submit and have approved, prior to Building Permit release, engineered stamped plans, profiles, sections, details, and engineering analyses and calculations for each wall type as required by the Town Engineer. At a minimum, unless otherwise direcfed, the engineering submittal shall include P.E. stamped plans, and P.E. stamped typical details with all engineering design parameters and calculated Factor of Safety provided on the details. Plans and details shall be cross referenced. VII. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Staff believes that these text amendments are in accordance with the purpose and intent of Titles 12 and 14, as they are all in line with the public interest and serve to improve the Code. The review criteria and factors for consideration for a request of a text amendment to Title 12 are established in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 12- 3, Vail Town Code. As there are no formal criteria for text amendments to Title 14, the provisions from Title 12 will be used for all proposed text amendment to provide for stringent criteria. A. Consideration of Factors Reaardinq the Text Amendment: 1. The extent to which the text amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the Sign, Zoning and Subdivision Regulations as well as the Development Standards Handbook; and • Staff believes that the proposed text amendments further the general and specific purposes of Titles 12 and 14. The text amendments create a more comprehensive, clear, and concise Code that will promote the general welfare of the community. 2. The extent to which the text amendment would better implement and better achieve the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town; and Staff believes that the proposed text amendments better implement and better achieve the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and are compatible with the development objectives of the Town. 3. The extent to which the text amendment demonstrates how conditions have substantially changed since the adoption of the subject regulation and how the existing regulation is no longer appropriate or is inapplicable; and Staff believes that the proposed text amendments align the specific language of the Regulations with the accepted interpretation and implementation of the regulations. 4. The extent to which the text amendment provides a harmonious, • convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal development objectives. Staff believes that the proposed text amendments will facilitate and provide a • harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations that are consistent with the Town of Vail master plans and development objectives. 5. Such other factors and criteria the Commission and/or Council deem applicable to the proposed text amendment. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before forwarding a recommendation of approval for a text amendment: 1. That the amendments are consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town; and 2. That the amendments further the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations and the Development Review Handbook; and 3. That the amendments promote the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town and promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION • The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the Town Council for proposed text amendments to Section 12-7H-5, Conditional Uses; Generally (On all Levels of a Building or Outside of a Building), to allow for seasonal use or structures as a conditional use in Lionshead Mixed Use I District; Section 12-7H-18, Mitigation of Development Impacts, to clarify the inclusion of employee housing as a mitigation of development impacts; Section 12-8A-3, Conditional Uses, to allow for ski runs as a conditional use of the Agricultural and Open Space District; Section 12-8C-3, Conditional Uses, to allow for ski lifts not including loading and unloading areas as a conditional use of the Natural Area Preservation District; Subsection 12-18-56, Density Control, to clarify limitations on structures which do not conform to density controls; Chapter 14-3, Residential Access, Driveway and Parking Standards, to clarify standards for access, driveway and parking for commercial properties; and Chapter 14-6, Grading Standards, to clarify requirements for retaining walls; Vail Town Code. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve these proposed text amendments, the Community Development • Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval to the Town Council for the Town of Vail's request for proposed text amendments to Section 12-7H-5, Conditional Uses; Generally (On all Levels of a Building or Outside of a Building), to allow for seasonal uses or structures as a conditional use in Lionshead Mixed Use !District; Section 12-7H-18, Mitigation of Development Impacts, to clarify the inclusion of employee housing as a mitigation of development impacts; Section 12-8A-3, Conditional Uses, to allow for ski runs as a conditional use of the Agricultural and Open Space District; Section 12-8C-3, Conditional Uses, to allow for ski lifts not including loading and unloading areas as a conditional use of the Natural Area Preservation District; Subsection 12-18-5B, Density Control, to clarify limitations on structures which do not conform to density controls; Chapter 14-3, Residential Access, Driveway and Parking Standards, to clarify standards for access, driveway and parking for commercial properties; and Chapter 14-6, Grading Standards, to clarify requirements for retaining walls; Vail Town Code, and setting forth details in regard (hereto." Staff's recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented. Should the Planning 8~ Environmental Commission choose to recommend approval of the proposed • amendments staff recommends that the following findings be incorporated into a motion: "1. That the amendments are consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town, and 2. That the amendments further the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations and the Development Standards Handbook; and 3. That the amendments promote the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town and promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality." • io PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING • , ~. April 24, 2006 TT)WNQFVAtL~' PROJECT ORIENTATION -Town Council Chambers -PUBLIC WELCOME MEMBERS PRESENT Chas Bernhardt Doug Cahill Dick Cleveland Anne Gunion Bill Jewitt Rollie Kjesbo Bill Pierce MEMBERS ABSENT Site Visits: 1. Crack of Noon - 1722 Buffehr Creek Road 2. Lion's Square Lodge North - 660 West Lionshead Place 3. Cahalin Residence - 1816 Sunburst Drive Driver: George Public Hearing -Town Council Chambers 12:00 pm 2:00 pm 1. Swearing in of Anne Gunion by Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk • 2. A request for final review of an appeal of an administrative action, pursuant to Section 12-3-3, Appeals, Vail Town Code, appealing a staff determination that an observatory is not an architectural feature allowed to extend above the building height limit, 1979 Sunburst Drive/Lot 12, Vail Valley Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PRJ05-0417) Appellant: Ned Gwathmey and Todd Kramer; Gwathmey, Pratt, Shultz Architects Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Tabled to May 8, 2006 MOTION: Pierce SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE: 6-0-0 (Gunion not sworn in) 3. A request for a final review of a variance, from Section 12-6D-9, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a site coverage variance to construct a residential addition, located at 1816 Sunburst Drive, Units A and B/Lot 1 Vail Valley Filing 3 and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0016) Applicant: John K. and Helen Jo Cahalin, represented by RKD Architects Planner: Warren Campbell /Elisabeth Reed ACTION: Approved with conditions MOTION: Bernhardt SECOND: Jewitt VOTE: 5-2-0 (Cahill ~ Kjesbo opposed) 1. This approval shall be contingent upon the applicant receiving Town of Vail approval of the design review application associated with this variance request. 2. The applicant shall submit and record an amended duplex plat which vacates the duplex separation line and establishes this structure as asingle-family structure prior • to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy or certificate of occupancy being granted. Page 1 Jack Snow, from RKD Architects, was available for questions. Dick Cleveland noted that this was not a grant of special privilege and a physical hardship • existed due to the drainage. Rollie Kjesbo asked for clarification of the GRFA calculations and the amount of addition being constructed. He noted his concerns about a poor architectural design justifying a site coverage variance. Bill Pierce also did not think that poor architectural design comprised justification of a variance. Ann Gunion noted that the existing structure creates a practical difficulty, which, as noted in the Town Code, justifies granting a variance. Chas Bernhardt added to Ann Gunion's comments that the existing area is already impervious. Doug Cahill asked the applicant to further explain the location of the proposed additions and noted that some existing site coverage could be removed and the request today, lessened. 4. A request for a final review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7H-7, Major Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the renovation of the Lion's Square Lodge North, located at 660 West Lionshead Place/Lot 8, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0019) Applicant: Lion's Square Lodge North Condominium Association, represented by Viele Development Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Tabled to May 8, 2006 MOTION: Jewitt SECOND: Cleveland VOTE: 7-0-0 Bill Gibson presented the project according to the memorandum. David Viele, the applicant, introduced the project according to the design boards erected in the room. Chip Melick, the architect, described the story boards for the proposal. He included the proposal to add one Employee Housing Unit (EHU) within the northeast tower expansion. David Viele added that many assets would result form the proposal as presented. The creation of Employee Housing on-site should be viewed as an asset, as should the creation of retail space upon the property. He stated that the purpose of the worksession was to gain feedback from the Commission regarding possible up and downsides of the project as proposed. Doug Cahill asked if any setbacks were being encroached upon with the proposal. David replied that the existing building at the northeast existed in an easement. A one-story building would be replaced in the same location. A view corridor was allowed between the proposal and the existing Montaneros building, which was built directly on the northwest property line. Alex Prizer, a representative of the Montaneros Condominium owners, voiced that concerns that the Montaneros owners were dealing with. He stated that it seemed that the setbacks required by zoning were not being honored with the new proposal. He did not agree with the proposal to erect another building structure within the northeastern easement. Further, he commented that the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan was not being honored in regard to sun/shade, view Page 2 corridors, and other similar issues. He added that there was a covenant in place that granted power to the Town regarding development issues. His hope on behalf of the homeowners was that the application be tabled until further discussion could occur regarding the proposal. Russ Forrest encouraged the Commission to keep their attention focused on the regulations specified by the Zoning Code and not the regulations specified by private covenants. Chip Glacier, a homeowner within the Montaneros building, expressed concern with the shadowing that would occur over the pool area of the Montaneros building due to the northeast tower proposed by the Lion's Square Lodge. He clarified that the setback issue at the northwest corner occurred subsequently to the construction of Montaneros. David Viele commented that he would not feel obligated to converse with the Montaneros ownership component due to his status under letter of intent. He detailed the efforts that had been made to maintain the view corridor that currently existed for the Montaneros homeowners. Alex Prizer commented that it was not his experience for the public to speak and then have a developer rebut the public comments. He commented that simply because a certain design would be allowed under zoning regulations did not mean that it was in accordance with the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan as well. Jim Lamont, Vail Village Homeowner's Association, commented that the Master Plan was not thoroughly detailed in the memorandum. Jim asked if there was enough information for the public to decipher, from the memo, what the issues are that are at stake. Jim requested that the Staff outline as much as possible, the details of the proposal and the regulations under which it is reviewed. Mr. Lamont further requested that the adjacent property improvements be submitted • by the applicant upon a central document for Planning and Environmental Commission review. He suggested a "shared amenities" package that would work to the advantage of surrounding homeowners. Bill Pierce commented that considerably less was being built on the site than could be constructed. He added that spaces between the buildings were, indeed, important to be well- developed and accommodating to property owners, etc. He realized that views would be affected but that good steps had already been taken to separate the two towers. When one's view lies across another one's properties, there is always a problem. He commented that it seemed to be important to see how the proposal fit into its context in terms of size and volume. Anne Gunion asked about the difference between how the "intent" of the Master Plan and the "regulations" of the Master Plan are met by the project. She warned that site coverage should be treated carefully. She was pleased to see that the roof height was not as high as it could be. The proposal seemed to be a huge improvement to the existing site and structure. She would not require additional study materials other than the existing regulations in the Zoning Code and Master Plan. Chas Bernhardt commented that today's presentation was a good start. He asked if the applicant might work on an east/west passage within the site. He urged the applicant to continue to work things out with the neighbors. Dick Cleveland voiced some concerns with the public ways between buildings. He stated that the Master Plan identified the need to create more of these public ways, which this project did not propose. He commented that he would be concerned about the "intent" statement about the • proposal's conformance. He added that long discussions had occurred about setbacks, step- backs, etc., with the Arrabelle project. The maximum regulations prescribed to a site should also Page 3 not be deemed the requirements for a site (i.e. height). With all of the work going on, he did not think that any parking should remain above ground. A design should be drafted that used the • existing/proposed above grade parking areas for a different use. Bill Jewitt stated that the proposal was a huge improvement over what was currently in place. He encouraged the applicant to use the warmest possible colors and avoid continuation of the beige palette that was currently in use within the Lionshead areas. He stated that in order to approve the project, he would need a comprehensive list of the public benefits that would result from the project. He encouraged the two parties to collaborate regarding the covenant issues. He was also concerned about the easement (i.e. what is allowed). Regarding traffic, he expressed some concern about the entrance to the covered parking area, saying that it seemed like a relatively sharp turn was inevitable. He agreed that all the parking should be covered and that no more should be added. Rollie Kjesbo complimented the applicant on the improvement of the current proposal. He, too, was hesitant regarding the easement. Parking should be replaced with green space, shared-by- vote space for the neighbor, etc. Doug Cahill echoed the comments made about the improvement of this proposal. He suggested that continued attention be paid to the amount of retail space that may be eventually a valuable asset within this area. Bill Pierce commented that this would be a great opportunity to look at the two towers in a different architectural light, as the Arrabelle was designed (to look like a series of different buildings). 5. A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a text amendment, pursuant to • Section 12-3-7, Amendments, Vail Town Code, to allow for an amendment to Section 12-21-14, Restrictions in Specific Zones on Excessive Slopes, Vail Town Code, to increase the amount of allowable site coverage on lots with excessive slopes from 15% to 20%, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0020) Applicant: Helmut Reiss, represented by Isom & Associates Planner: Matt Gennett /Bill Gibson ACTION: Tabled to May 8, 2006 MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Jewitt VOTE: 7-0-0 Bill Gibson presented the project according to the memorandum. Steve Isom, the applicant, commented that the request before the Commission today had begun as a simple site coverage variance request initiated by an addition to a home in West Vail of 100 square feet. The applicant had been urged by the Planning Commission to pursue the route of a text amendment instead. Much discussion had occurred over the years regarding the limitation of site disturbance vs. the regulation of site coverage. Steve furthered that residences built upon steep slopes have always been limited by site coverage and thence were unable to take advantage even of the 250 addition that used to be in place for single/two-family residential sites. He recommended that the phrase "new" be placed in the development phrase recommended by Staff. Dick Cleveland commented that this was a request that is related only to a couple of sites and should not be evaluated as a text amendment for different zone districts, generally. He thought that the current regulations were effective. Bill Jewitt commented that he was in favor last time and will likely be in favor of the request Page 4 again. He saw this as a regulation relating to hazards. He agreed with Steve's comment that the DRB was the Board that should regulate site disturbance. However, he felt that a calculable • guideline (in terms of a percentage) should be instituted to guide disturbance amounts. Rollie Kjesbo also stated his continued support of the request. He said that the 60% was a good idea. If that was a number that needed to be exceeded, it could be, privy to Design Review Board review and approval. A variance should not be needed for that type of request above 60%. Bill Pierce agreed with the other Commissioners. Anne Gunion felt that the allowable site coverage should be at least 20%. She was opposed to restricting site disturbance. She did agree to protecting natural and environmental features, which should be viewed on a lot-to-lot basis. She would prefer that disturbance be treated on a site-to-site basis. Chas Bernhardt felt that this guideline could not be applied overall, but needed to be dealt with on a site-to-site basis. Doug Cahill agreed that since disturbance was the intent of bringing the site coverage down to 15%, it should be regulated now. He felt that the natural forms of the site should be maintained as well. He preferred _to not regulate disturbance but to let the site coverage rise to 20%. Bill Jewitt commented that the DRB should be required to approve a site disturbance plan. He suggested it be stated that the Town has reasonably felt that 60% was a studied number (guideline). • Anne Gunion suggested that the intent of the regulation be placed in the text to be used by the Design Review Board. Bill Gibson clarified that for the next Commission meeting, Staff would draft text amendment language that included an intent statement, a 60% site disturbance guideline, and Design Review Board authority to approve site coverage in excess of the guideline. 6. A request for a final review of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for an amendment to an existing platted building envelope, located at 1722 Buffehr Creek Road/Lot 5, Block A, Lia Zneimer Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0025) Applicant: Crack of Noon, L. P., represented by K. H. Webb Architects Planner: Elisabeth Reed ACTION: Denied MOTION: K~esbo SECOND: Gunion VOTE: 6-0-0 (Jewitt absent) This action was based upon the interpretation by the Planning and Environmental Commission that the on-grade patio to the northwest of the residence is exempt from the plat restriction requiring that it be contained within the building envelope, as long as it is filled to the minimum height clearance dictated by the Building Code as applied by the Town of Vail at time of construction. Elisabeth Reed presented an overview of the staff memorandum. Kyle Webb, the applicant's representative, presented an overview of the request. • Commissioner Pierce asked Elisabeth to clarify which portions of the building must be located within the building envelope. Page 5 Elisabeth Reed clarified the difference between the approved plans and the proposed plans. • Rollie Kjesbo questioned amending a plat for the Zeimer Subdivision. Chas Bernhardt noted that circumstances were beyond the applicant's control and the new space is for the purpose of retaining the terrace entryway to the residence. Dick Cleveland noted that the applicant repeatedly stated they could comply with the building envelope. He was opposed to increasing the size of the envelope and wanted the applicant to ask for other exclusions that meet the intent of the restriction. Kyle Webb stated that he was agreeable to infilling this space to 18 inches in order to meet the building code requirement for clearance. Bill Jewitt recommends this be resolved by the applicant and staff. Bill Jewitt left the meeting after making his comments. Rollie Kjesbo recommended that this space be defined as a means of retaining. Doug Cahill recommended that a different style footer could have been used. Ann Gunion noted that there was no visible difference from the original approval. The difference is that a crawlspace now exists under the patio. Bill Pierce asked the applicant to clarify the structural design of the stair, to which the applicant replied that each stair was constructed with a 17' deep footing to compensate for the poor soils • in this area. 7. A request for final review of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for floodplain modifications, located at 2764, 2754, and 2695 South Frontage Road/Lots A, B, and C, Stephens Subdivision; and a request for a final review of floodplain modifications, pursuant to Chapter 14-6, Grading Standards, Vail Town . Code, to allovv for grading within the floodplain, located at 2764, 2754, and 2695 South Frontage Road/Lots A;: B, and C, Stephens Subdivision, and 2450 South Frontage Road/Unplatted and setting forth details in regard. (PEC06-0001 and PEC06-0027) Applicant: Town of Vail, Louise Young, Brian Hoyt, Maggie Froning, Lorraine Howenstine, and Chas Bernhardt Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Amended Final Plat approved with conditions MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Pierce VOTE: 4-1-1 (Cleveland opposed, Bernhardt abstained, Jewitt absent) CONDITIONS: For zoning purposes, the allowable density calculations for Parcels A, B, and C, Stephens Subdivision shall be based upon a buildable lot size of no less than 1985 platted buildable lot sizes. ACTION: Floodplain Modification approved with conditions MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Gunion VOTE: 6-0-0 (Jewitt absent) CONDITIONS: 1. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of all applicable local, state, and federal permits and approvals. • Page 6 2. The applicant shall coordinate all grading associated with this proposal with the State of Colorado Division of Wildlife. • 3. Prior to any modification, excavation or placement of fill within the 100-year floodplain: a. All improvements/modifications shall comply with the study and letter completed by Hydrosphere Resource Consultants dated 2/14/06 and 3/29/06 respectively. b.The applicant must obtain Town of Vail Design Review Board and Building Department approval. c.The applicant must submit and obtain FEMA approval of a CLOMR-F (Conditional Letter of Map Revision based on Fill) or CLOMR (Conditional Letter of Map Revision). 4. Upon completion of the improvements/modifications within the 100-year floodplain: a. The applicant shall satisfy all conditions of the FEMA approved CLOMR-F or CLOMR. b. The applicant must submit and receive FEMA approval of a LOMR-F (Letter of Map Revision based on Fill) or LOMR (Letter of Map Revision based on Fill) . c. The applicant shall obtain Town of Vail approval of an as-built survey showing the modified 100-year and the FEMA approved floodplain line. 5. All new structures placed upon any fill improvement shall meet FEMA's criteria to be defined as not within the 100-year floodplain. All new structures shall also be a minimum of one (1.0) foot above the FEMA approved Base Flood Elevation (BFE), thus providing 1.0 foot of freeboard. • Bill Gibson made a presentation of the information provided in the staff memorandum. Tom Kassmel, Town Engineer, was available for comment, as a representative of Town of Vail Department of Public Works. Ann Gunion asked how this action would allow applicants to grade in the floodplain. Bill Gibson explained that the floodplain line on the plat would be deleted since it is incorrect. Because this is Residential Cluster zoning, allowable density is based upon buildable lot area (which exclused areas within the floodplain). Ann Gunion asked what authority PEC has to allow grading in the floodplain. Bill Gibson answered that PEC is authorized by Title 14 of the Vail Town Code and is first step in approval to grade in the floodplain, followed by FEMA approval. Tom Kassmel spoke about the Pubic Works Departments coordination with FEMA and engineering consultants. FEMA has communicated that this type of request is a common occurrence and simply a matter of processing the appropriate paperwork. Tom noted that the Town of Vail's requirements for this proposal are more restrictive than FEMA's requirements. Loraine Howenstein, co-applicant, said she sold property in Gypsum where lots within the floodplain were filled. She said that all these properties had to do was apply to FEMA for a change. She mentioned a few inches many times, but was not really sure what was going on here. • Dick Cleveland said he was concerned about increasing allowable GRFA and density for these properties, but that moving the properties out of the floodplain makes sense. He supported the Page 7 floodplain modification and the plat amendment if it wasn't used to create more buildable lot area. Rollie Kjesbo supported the application as proposed. • Bill Pierce agreed with Dick. Anne Gunion agrees with Dick. Doug Cahill said he would recommend keeping the plat note preventing additional buildable lot size. Anne asked why the applicant would want the note removed from the plat. Bill answered that it would allow for me GRFA. Luise Young, co-applicant, questioned what impact this would have on her property. Bill Gibson explained. Dick Cleveland noted that such an approval would allow for more area of the lots to be safe from flooding. Bill Gibson noted that the new floodplain line works to the advantage of Parcel A, but to the disadvantage of Parcels B and C. Bill Pierce said that there are winners and losers in this game. However, the point is to make homes safer, not bigger. Dick Cleveland stated that the homeowners needed to be treated fairly and suggested that the • least restrictive of the incorrect 1985 and the current floodplain lines should be used to calculate buildable lot area. Bill Gibson clarified that Dick's recommendation would not allow the property owners to gain additional density and GRFA by filling their lots beyond what would be allowed by the 1985 or current buildable lot sizes. Rollie Kjesbo disagreed and recommended that density and GRFA be based upon the actual buildable lot sizes (i.e. not limited to the 1985 or current conditions), but that no lot would have a net loss of density or GRFA from the 1985 conditions. 8. A request fora recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for amendments to Section 12-7H-5, Conditional Uses; Generally (On all Levels of a Building or Outside of a Building), to allow for seasonal use or structures as a conditional use in Lionshead Mixed Use I District; Section 12-7H-18, Mitigation of Development Impacts, to clarify the inclusion of employee housing as a mitigation of development impacts; Section 12-8A-3, Conditional Uses, to allow for ski runs as a conditional use of the Agricultural and Open Space District; Section 12-8C-3, Conditional Uses, to allow for ski lifts not including loading and unloading areas as a conditional use of the Natural Area Preservation District; Subsection 12-18-5B, Density Control, to clarify limitations on structures which do not conform to density controls; and Chapter 14-3, Residential Access, Driveway and Parking Standards, to clarify standards for access, driveway and parking for commercial properties; Vail Town Code, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0029) . Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Rachel Friede Page 8 ACTION: Tabled to May 8, 2006 MOTION: Cleveland SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE: 6-0-0 (Jewitt absent) • 9. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of an amendment to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, pursuant to Section 2.8, Adoption and Amendment of the Master Plan, Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, to amend the Lionshead Study Area Boundaries and Chapter 5, Detailed Plan Recommendations, to include the study "West Lionshead" area, generally located at 646, 862, 890, 923, 934, 953, 1000, and 1031 South Frontage Road West/Lot 54 and Tract K of Glen Lyon Subdivision, Tracts C and D, Vail Village Filing 2, and several unplatted parcels (a more complete legal description is available at the Community Development Department), and setting forth details in .regard thereto. (PEC06-0008) Applicant: Vail Resorts Development Company, Town of Vail, and Glen Lyon Office Building General Partnership Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Tabled to May 8, 2006 MOTION: Pierce SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE: 6-0-0 (Jewitt absent) 10. A request for a final review of an amendment to a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7H-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, and a final review of an amendment to a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-7H-2, Permitted and Conditional Uses; Basement or Garden Level, and 12-7H-3, Permitted and Conditional Uses; First Floor on Street Level, Vail Town Code to allow for the development of 4 additional multi-family residential dwelling units (total of 111 dwelling units), located at 728 West Lionshead Circle/Lot 2, West Day Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (Ritz-Carlton Residences)(PEC05-0021 and PEC05-0022) Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc., represented by Jay Peterson Planner: Warren Campbell • ACTION: Tabled to May 8, 2006 MOTION: Pierce SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE: 6-0-OJewitt absent) 11. Approval of April 10, 2006 minutes ACTION: Approved MOTION: Jewitt SECOND: Kjesbo 12. Information Update 13. Adjournment MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Bernhardt VOTE: 6-0-0 (Jewitt absent) VOTE: 6-0-0 (Jewitt absent) The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24-hour notification. Please call (970) 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published April 21, 2006, in the Vail Daily. • Page 9 • • 1595 PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF EAGLE SS. I, Steve Pope, do solemnly swear that I am a qualified representative of the Vail Daily. That the same Daily newspaper printed, in whole or in part and published in the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, and has a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been published continuously and uninterruptedly in said County of Eagle for a period of more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement and that said newspaper has Published the requested legal notice and advertisement as requested. The Vail Daily is an accepted legal advertising medium, only for jurisdictions operating under Colorado's Home Rule provision. That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in the regular and entire issue of every number of said daily newspaper for the period of 1 consecutive insertions; and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated April 21 A.D. 2006 and that the last publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated April 21 A.D. 2006. In witness whereof has here unto set my hand this 7th day April, 2006. /~ ~; Pu>~hej~Crener~Ianager/Editor Subscribed and sworn to before rne, a notary public in and for the Count``y of Eagle, State of Colorado this 7t1i of Apri12006. .-. I l I e, --~ . ~,,-~s,:~:~. , jf 'lam .~.~' ~~'l .~KL-.~~1(~~1.i`~,~ O`+`t~;~..~C~g ~. :Pamela Joan Schultz ~ ~; • '•~/~., Notary Public • • • • • • S PA{'ricLA 4. ~ My Commission expires: November 1, 2007 • SCKuL f: • • ~ e • a• ~ Ctn.:>. ____ TM15 REM MAY AFFECTYOUR PROP- ERTY PUB1.~ NOTICE IS HEREBY GNEN that Planning and Emimnmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a pudic hearing in accordance with sectbn 12-3.6, Veit Town Cotle, on May 8, 2006. at Z:00 pm in the Town of Vail Municipal 8wlding, in con- si.:~.~..,... of: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant b Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town node, and Section 2.6, Adoption and Amendment of the Master Plan, Lionshead Rede- velopment Master Plan, to allow for amendments to Articles i2-7H, Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District, and 12-71, Lionshead Mixed Use 2 District, Vail Town Code, and the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, to require no net loss of parking, no net loss of employee housing units and no net loss of accommodation units m Lionshead Mixed Use 1 and Lionshead Mixed Use 2 Districts, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PECO6-0026) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Rachel Friede A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town ~I Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for proposed amendments to Chapters 12-21, Hazard Regulations, 14-7, Geo- kxficlEnvironmenlal Hazards, and 14-10, Design i Review Standards and Guidelines, Vail Town ~ Code, to include wildfire hazard in the Hazard Reg- ulations, and to require defenside space and ban wood roofs in high wildfire risk zones, and setting forth details in regard [hereto. (PEC06-0029) Applicant Town of Vail Planner: Rachel Friede A request for a final review of a conditional use ~ permit, pursuant to Section 12-7H-5 Conditional j Uses: Generally, to allow for a seasonal use or I` structure for conferences and conventions, located in Tract A, Lot 4, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 1 Addition 1, and setting forth details in regard there- to. (PEC06-0030) Applicant: Lion's Square Lodge, represented by Bill Anderson ' Planner: Bill Gibson A request for a final review of a conditional use permd, pursuant to Section 12-6D-3, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, to allow far a public utility and pudic service use (water tank), located at 2734 Snowberry Drive/Lot 14, Block 9, Vail Inter- mountain, and setting forth details in regard there- to. (PECO6-0031) Applicant: Eagle River Water and Sanitation Dis- trict Planner: Elisabeth Reed ~, A request for a final review of a conditional use perrtat, purwemt >a Chapter 12-8E-3, Condriional Uses, V~ Tam Code, to albw for the construction d a Drivels ctuh: 1~1 Vail Lanellot 2, Mill Creek Subdivision, and settng forth details in regard thereto. (PECOS-0oa2~ bAly.~,nd9e rapartfes, Inc., :, :. .. ,,~; Planner George Ruttier The applications and information about the propos- als are avalade for pudic inspection during office ~, hours at the Town of Vail Community Deveopment ~ Departm@nt, 75 South Frontage Road. The pudic,i is invited to attend project odentatan and the site visits that the pudic hearing in the Town of Vail mmuniiy Development Department. i Please call 970-479-2138 for additional intorma- ~, lion. Sign language interpretation is availade upon re- quest, with 24-hour notffication. Please call 970- 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Pudished April 21, 2006, in the Vail Daily.(32511503) • 1602 PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF EAGLE SS. I, Steve Pope, do solemnly swear that I am a qualified representative of the Vail Da:,ly. That the same Daily newspaper printed, in whole or in part and published in the County of Eagle, Mate of Colorado, and has a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been published continuously and uninterruptedly in said County of Eagle for a period of more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement and that said newspaper has Published the requested legal notice and advertisement as requested. The Vail Daily is an accepted legal advertising medium, only for jurisdictions operating under Colorado's Home Rule provision. That the annexed legal notice or advertisement vas published in the regular and entire issue of every number of said daily newspaper for the period of 1 consecutive insertions; and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated May 05 A.D. 2006 and that the last publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated May OS A.D. 2006. A In witness whereof has here unto set my hand this 29th day May, 2000~!~ ~` 1 ~ubl~sher/General Manager/Editor Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado this 19t1i of May 2006. f r --.~,~ H o,~~tY P(/e Pamela Joan~~~lfz •......• ~~.•• •.•.~ Notary Public •. PIAMELA ~. My Commission expires: November 1, 2007 ~~ SCHULTZ ? •. .• • Mixed Use 1 District, and 12-71, Liorishead Mixed Use 2 District, Vail Town Code, and the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, to require no net loss of parking, no net loss of employee housing units and no net loss of accommodation units in Lions- head Mixetl Use 1 and Lionsheatl Mixed Use 2 Districts, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06.0028) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: George Ruther ACTION: Tabled to May 22, 2006 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 13. A request for a final review of a major exterior atteraiion, pursuant to Section 72-7J-12, Major Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, ro allow for the construction of the Timberline Lodge, located at 1763 North Frontage Road/Lots 9-12, Buffehr Creek Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PECf~~- 0060) Applicant Timberline Roost Lodge, LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: George Ruther ACTION: Tabled to June 12, 2006 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 14. Approval of April 24, 2006 minutes MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 15. Information Update 16. Adjournment MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: The applications and information about the propos- als are available for public inspection during regu- lar office hours at the Town of Vail Community De- velopment Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orienta- tion and the site visits that precede the public hear- ing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please calf (970) 47&2138 for addi- tional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon re- quest with 24-hour notification. Please call (970) 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published May 5, 2006, in the Vail Daily. v !, rte/] A, _~ ~J ` _/• ~ . • PUBLIC NOTICE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING May 8, 2006 PROJECT ORIENTATION -Town Council Cham- bers -PUBLIC WELCOME 12:00 pm MEMBEAS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Chas Bernhardt SRe Visits: 1. Ritz Carlton Residences - 728 West Lionshead Circle 2. Eagle River Water and Sanitation District - 2734 Snowberry Drive Driver: Warren Public Hearing -Town Counutil Chambers 2:00 pm 1. A request for a final recommendation tc the Vail Town Council of a text amendment, pur- suant to Section 12-3-7, Amendments, Vail Town Code, to allow for an amendment to Section 12-21- 14, Restrictions in Specific Zones on Excessive Slopes. Vail Town Code, to increase the amount of allowable site coverage on lots with excessive slopes from 15 % to 20°-0, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PECO6-0020) Applicant Helmut Reiss, represented by Isom & Associates Planr;er: Matt Gannett ~ Bill Gibson ACTION: MOTION: SECOND:VOTE. 2. A request for a final review of a condi- tional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-6D-3, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, to allow for a public utility and public service use (water tank), lo- cated at 2734 Snowberry Drive/Lot 14, Block 9, Vail Intermountain, and setting forth details in re- gard thereto. (PECO6-0031) Applicant: Eagle River Water and Sanitation District Planner: Elisabeth Reed ACTION: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 3. A request for final review of an ap- peal of an administrative action, pursuant to Sec- lion 12~-3, Appeals, y~aaif Town Cade, appealing a staff determination that an observatory is not an architectural projection Mowed to eMend above [he building height limit, 1979 Sunburst Drive/Lot 12, Vail Valley Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PRJ05-0417) Appellant: Ned Gwathmey and Todd Kramer; Gwathmey, Pratt, Shultz Architects Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 4. A request for a final review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-1H-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, and a final review of a conditional use per- mit, pursuam to Section 12.7H-Z, Permitted and Conditional Uses; Basement or Garden Level, and 12-7H-3, Permitted and Conditional Uses; First Floor on Street Level, Vail Town Code, to allow for the development of 4 additional multi-fami{y residential dwelling units (total of 111 dwelling units), located at 728 West Lionshead Circle/Lot 2, West Day Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (Ritz-Carlton Residences) (PEC05- 0021 and PECOS-0022) Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc., represented by Jay Peterson Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: MOTION: SECOND VOTE: 5. A request for a final review of a condi- tional use permit, pursuant to Chapter 12-8E-3. Conditional Uses. Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of a private club; 151 Vail Lane/Lot 2, Mill Creek Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PECO6-0032) Applicant: Lodge Properties, Inc., Planner George Ruther ACTION: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 6. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for Ski Base Recreation 2 zone district on a 5.13 parcel of land commonly referred to as the "Front Door USFS land exchange parcel°, located at 151 Vail Lane/ (A complete legal description is available at the Community Development Department), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PECO6- 0014} Applicant: United States of America, by and through the Forest Service, represented by Vail Resorts Development Company Planner: George Ruther ACTION: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE:: 7. A request for a final review of a di- tional use permit, pursuant to Section 12- -5 Conditional Uses: Generally, to allow fora a- sonal use or structure for conferences and ra- tions, located in Tract A, Lot 4, Block 1, Vail s- head Filing 1 Addition 1, and setting forth detatlS in regard thereto. (PEC08-0030) Applignt: ' Lion Square Lodge, represented by Bill Anderson Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 8. A request for a final review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7N-7, Major Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the renovation of the Li- on's Square Lodge North, located at 660 West Lionshead Place/Lot 8, Blocc 1, Vail Lidns- head Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0019) Applicant: Lion's Square Lodge North Condominium Association, represented by Viele Development Planner. BAl Gibson ACTION: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 9. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-$-? Amendment, Vail Town Code, for amendments to Section 12-7H-5. Conditional Uses; Generally iOn all Levels of a Building or Outside of a Building), to allow for seasonal use or structures as a condition- al use in Lionshead Mixed Use I District; Secion 12-7H-18, Mitigation of Development impacts, to clarify the inclusion of employee housing as a miti- gation of development impacts; Section 12-8p-3, Conditional Uses, to allow for ski runs as a condi- tional use of the Agricultural and Open Space Dis- trict, Section 12-8C-3, Conditional Uses, to a!iow for ski lifts not including loading and unloading areas as a conditional use of the Natural Area Preservation District; Subsection 12-t8-58, Densi- ty Control, to clarify limitations on structures which do not conform to density controls: and Chapter 14-3, Residential Access, Driveway and Parking Standards, to clarity standards for access, drive- way artd parking for commercial p. _y....::.s; Vail Town Code, and setBng forth details in regard thereto. (PECO6-0029) Applicam: Town of Vail Planner: Rachel Frieda ACTION: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 10. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Councl, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vai4 Town Code, ~r proposed amendments to Chapters 12-21, Hazard Regulations, 14-7, Geologic(Ernironmemal Haz- ards, and 14-t0, Design Review Standards and Guidelines, Vail Town Code, to include wildfire hazard in the Hazard Regulations, and to require defensible space and ban wood roofs in high wild- fire risk zones, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0029) Applicant. Town of Vail Planner: Rachel Frieda ACTION: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 11. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of an amendment to the Li- onshead Redeveopment Master Plan, pur- suant to Section 2.8, Adoption and Amendment of the Master Plan, Lionshead Redevelopment Mas- ter Plan, to amend the Lionshead Study Area Boundaries and Chapter 5, Detailed Plan Recom- mendations, to include the study "West Lionshead" area, generally located at 646, 862, 890, 923, 934. 953, 1000, and 1031 South Frontage Road WesULot 54 and Tract K of Glen Lyon Subdivision, Tracts C and D, Vall ViNage Filing 2, and several unplatted parcels (a more complete legal description is available at the Community Development Department), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-6008) Applicant: Vail Resorts Development Company, Town of Vail, and Glen Lyon Office Building General Partnership Planner: Warren CampbelV ACTION: Tabled to May 22, 2006 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 12. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, and Section 2.8. Adoption and Amendment of the Master Plan, Uonshead Redeveklpment Master Pfan, to allow for amendments to Articles 12-7H, Lionshead PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING • _, , ,: May 22, 2006 TC3WNOFU9il;`. PROJECT ORIENTATION -Town Council Chambers -PUBLIC WELCOME 2:00 pm LUNCH WILL NOT BE SERVED MEMBERS PRESENT Chas Bernhardt Doug Cahill Dick Cleveland Rollie Kjesbo Bill Pierce Public Hearing -Town Council Chambers MEMBERS ABSENT Bill Jewitt Anne Gunion 2:00 pm 1. A request fora recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, and Section 2.8, Adoption and Amendment of the Master Plan, Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, to allow for amendments to Articles 12-7H, Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District, and 12-7t, Lionshead Mixed Use 2 District, Vail Town Code, and the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, to require no net loss of parking, no net loss of employee housing units and no net loss of accommodation units in Lionshead Mixed Use 1 and Lionshead Mixed Use 2 Districts, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0028) Applicant: Town of Vail • Planner: George Ruther ACTION: Tabled to June 12, 2006 MOTION: Bernhardt SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE: 5-0-0 George Ruther presented an overview of the request and the staff memorandum. Bill Pierce noted a conflict of interest if this item is discussed solely in regard to the Lionshead Inn and the old VailGlo Lodge and not as a general policy. George Ruther clarified that this item was a general policy discussion applicable to all of Lionshead. Doug Cahill asked George to clarify the recent Town Council direction. George Ruther noted that the Town Council direction was to create a "no net loss of accommodation units" policy for Lionshead and this policy discussion is broader than the initial thought on simply requiring no-net-loss of hotel rooms. This policy discussion focuses on maintaining and increasing all forms of live beds in Lionshead, as articulated in the master plan. Chas Bernhardt asked George Ruther to clarify how some of the proposed amendments would apply to specific situations. Dick Cleveland asked George Ruther to clarify the correlation between an accommodation unit and the number of beds. Dick noted that the number of beds is the true concern, and not necessarily the number of units. Page 1 Bill Pierce and Chas Bernhardt noted that the market will determine the appropriate number of beds in each unit. • George Ruther noted that no-net-loss has not been clarified to mean the Lionshead area or in an individual building. It is believed to apply to individual buildings, however. Bill Pierce noted the need for permanent residents in the Lionshead area, and is concerned about the unintended consequence of discouraging such residence. Dick Cleveland and Rollie Kjesbo noted their concerns about considering voluntary rental dwelling units as live beds if the goal is to preserve true hotel rooms (ie, accommodation units). George Ruther noted that the LMU-1 zoning does not require a mixed use development. A single use building such as the Ritz Carlton is currently permitted. He also noted that "lodge dwelling units" allowed by zoning have not yet been constructed. Doug Cahill noted that the use of any of the allowed units depends upon the management of the property and the market. There is an importance to the presence of hotel amenities in all projects. Jim Lamont asked George Ruther to clarify the Council's policy direction and some specific elements of the request. George Ruther and Russ Forest clarified the direction. Jim Lamont noted that the LMU-1 zoning is too wide open and does not capture any one specific goal of the master plan. He believes the Council and the PEC need to look more closely at the broader issues and we are going down the path of the Village from the 1970's with a dead downtown environment. Dominic Mauriello, representing Lionshead Inn (Bill Pierce left the room during this discussion) noted that the master plan purposely never included a no-net-loss of hotel rooms policy. The only no-net- loss policy only applied to parking with a possible redevelopment of the Lionshead Parking structure and employee housing units at the Sunbird Building. He also noted that the majority of the hot beds in Lionshead are not hotel rooms. These non-hotel beds have a higher occupancy rate than the hotel beds. He also noted that hotel rooms and fractional fee units receive significant incentives in the LMU zoning. He also noted a concern about equity in that only three properties will be required to maintain hotels in all of Lionshead. He noted that only the core site is recommended as a mixed use hotel building in the master plan. It is unfair to allow the Ritz to build all condominiums and only allow hotels in other buildings within the same zone district. He noted that the Evergreen voluntarily agreed to a no-net-loss hotel room policy when they requested a rezoning to LMU, which is very different than other properties that have been zoned LMU for several years and are only now restricted to maintaining hotel rooms. Dick Cleveland noted his concern about specifically naming projects in the proposed amendments instead of a general policy change. Dick recommended changing the proposed text to reflect a no- net-loss of live beds policy: He interpreted the Council's direction as maintaining only one of the live bed products (i.e. accommodation units). He is not an advocate of transfer of development rights. Rollie Kjesbo agreed with Dick in obtaining clearer Council direction of only maintaining hotel rooms or is this discussion about maintaining live beds. He believes the different types of live beds work well in Lionshead. Bill Pierce recommended a policy of allowing permanent resident in the core areas. He is in favor of • maintaining live beds, not accommodation units. He believes the policy needs to apply to the entire district and the "opportunity" should not be borne by only one or two buildings. Page 2 Chas Bernhardt noted the need for permanent residents and the need for chain based hotel products to meet market demands. He acknowledged that many rental condominiums work well, but • requiring hotels may be necessary. Doug Cahill suggested working further to define live beds, instead of only focusing on accommodation units. He also recommended further analysis of which products currently are working best. He recommended exploring a policy of requiring live beds in the new development projects. He noted his concerns about voluntary rental programs. George Ruher noted the Staff's concern that this policy is not as simple as only requiring a no-net- loss of hotel rooms and the disconnection between the existing master plan policies and the existing zoning regulations. He stated that if the goal was to address Policy 2.3.3 of the master plan, than more should be done than simply attempt to preserve accommodation units. Dominic Mauriello noted that the PEC should give direction to the Council on zoning issues and to not simply parrot back what the Council wants. Dick Cleveland repeated his desire for further direction from the Council. Bill Pierce does not want to just patch a small hole without examining this issues in their entirety. 2. A request for a variance from Section 12-6D-9, Site Coverage, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a residential addition, located at 1100 Hornsilver Circle/Lot 7, Block 1, Vail Village Filing 8, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06- 0033) • Applicant: Phillip and Jennifer Maritz, represented by Fritzlen Pierce Architects Planner: Matt Gennett ACTION: Tabled to June 12, 2006 MOTION: Cleveland SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE: 5-0-0 3. A request for a final review of a variance, from Section 12-6B-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for a garage addition within the front setback, located at 1462 Aspen Grove Lane/Lot 11, Block 2, Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing 4, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0034) Applicant: Matthew and Doris Gobec, represented by John M. Perkins, AIA Planner: Matt Gennett ACTION: Tabled to June 12, 2006 MOTION: Cleveland SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE: 5-0-0 4. A request for a final review of a variance, from Section 12-6D-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for a new single family residence within the front and side setbacks, located at 1740 Sierra Trail/Lot 22, Vail Village West Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0015) Applicant: Lois Solis, represented by Michael Suman Architect Planner: Matt Gennett ACTION: Tabled to June 12, 2006 MOTION: Cleveland SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE: 5-0-0 5. A request fob a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of an amendment to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, pursuant to Section 2.8, Adoption and Amendment of the Master • Plan, Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, to amend the Lionshead Study Area Boundaries and Chapter 5, Detailed Plan Recommendations, to include the study "West Lionshead" area, Page 3 generally located at 646, 862, 890, 923, 934, 953, 1000, and 1031 South Frontage Road West/Lot 54 and Tract K of Glen Lyon Subdivision, Tracts C and D, Vail Village Filing 2, and several unplatted parcels (a more complete legal description is available at the Community • Development Department), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0008) Applicant: Vail Resorts Development Company, Town of Vail, and Glen Lyon Office Building General Partnership Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Tabled to June 26, 2006 MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Cleveland VOTE: 5-0-0 6. A request for a final review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7H-7, Major Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the renovation of the Lion's Square Lodge North, located at 660 West Lionshead Place/Lot 8, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0019) Applicant: Lion Square Lodge North Condominium Association, represented by Viele Development Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Tabled to June 26, 2006 MOTION: Cleveland SECOND: Bernhardt VOTE: 4-0-0 (Kjesbo absent) Bill Gibson noted that the applicant has recently met with representative from the Montaneros and the applicant is working on revisions to the proposed redevelopment of the Lion Square Lodge North Building. The applicant wanted to show the PEC their recently created 3D model and update the PEC on what revisions will be presented at the PEC's next hearing. David Viele and Chip Melick presented the 3D model and described draft revisions being designed in response to the concerns of the Montaneros owners. The Commission viewed the 3D model and informed the applicant that additional views of the model and/or other drawings will be needed for final review of the project. Alex Prieser noted his objection to the presentation because of confusion about whether or not the item was tabled to the June 26, 2006, hearing. 7. Approval of May 8, 2006 minutes MOTION: Cleveland SECOND: Pierce and Bernhardt abstained) 8. Information Update 9. Adjournment MOTION: Cleveland SECOND: Bernhardt VOTE: 3-0-1 (Kjesbo absent VOTE: 4-0-0 The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24-hour notification. Please call (970) 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department /Published May 19, 2006, in the Vail Daily. • Page 4 • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 22, 2006 SUBJECT: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of amendments to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, pursuant to Chapter 2, Section 2.8, Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, to amend Section 2.3.3 Stronger Economic Base Through Increased Live Beds, Chapter 4 Recommendations-Overall Study Area, and Chapter 5 Detailed Plan Recommendations of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan to establish policies for the preservation and enhancement of the number of increased live beds in Lionshead, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: George Ruther I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST • The applicant, the Town of Vail, is requesting a public hearing with the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission to present amendments to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. The proposed application amends the following portions of the Plan: 1) Section 2.3.3 Stronger Economic Base Through Increased Live Beds, 2) Chapter 4Recommendations-Overall Study Area, and 3) Chapter 5 Detailed Plan Recommendations, of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. The purpose of the amendments are to establish written policy for the preservation and enhancement of the total number of "live beds" in Lionshead and to adopt detail plan recommendations for existing and potential development sites where "live beds" presently or potentially may exist. According to the Master Plan, "renewal and redevelopment in Lionshead must promote improved occupancy rates and the creation of additional bed base ("live beds" or "warm beds' through new lodging products." This amendment is being proposed and shall be considered in accordance with Section 2.8. Adoption and Amendment of the Master Plan. Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. The intended outcome of these amendments would be the possible future • adoption of text amendments to the Lionshead Mixed Use - 1 and Lionshead Mixed Use - 2 zone districts as contained in Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail • Town Code. The Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission is being asked to review the proposed amendments and then forward a recommendation of either approval, approval with modifications, or denial to the Vail Town Council. A complete outline of the proposed amendments to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan is described in detail in Attachment A to this memorandum. BACKGROUND On April 18, 2006, the Vail Town Council adopted Ordinance No. 13, Series Of 2006, an emergency ordinance placing a moratorium on the submission of development applications and building permits in Lionshead until possible amendments to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan ensuring the preservation of accommodation units in Lionshead could be considered by the Town of Vail. On May 16, 2006, the Vail Town Council approved Ordinance No. 15, Series of 2006, on first reading, an ordinance extending the moratorium in Lionshead. PROPOSED MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT Amendments to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan require a public • hearing review process as outlined in Section 12-3-6 of the Town Code. If approved, amendments are adopted by resolution by the Vail Town Council. According to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, amendments to the Master Plan must address the following review criteria: How have conditions changed since the plan was adopted? Ten years ago, on November 4, 1996, the Vail Town Council found that "opportunity exists for the public and private sectors to act collaboratively to renew and revitalize this important component (Lionshead) of our community." Since then, the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan was adopted and as a result a significant amount of redevelopment effort has taken place or is underway in Lionshead. Redevelopment pressure has increased dramatically due to the development incentives that have been put in place for Lionshead. It is because of these incentives and the rising cost of real estate in Vail that buildings once thought of as having little or no redevelopment potential are now entertaining offers for buy-outs and considering redevelopment proposals. As a result, the bed base ("live beds" or "warm beds") in Lionshead may be in jeopardy. The applicant believes that the proposed amendments are critical to the continued success of Lionshead and the community. How is the plan in error? The Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan may be in error in this situation. • Chapter 2 of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan outlines the Town's 2 • objectives and goals for the enhancement of Lionshead and proposes recommendations, incentives, and requirements for redevelopment and new development of public and private properties. Pursuant to Section 2.3, Policy Objectives, an important issue to be addressed in the Master Plan, and thus in Lionshead, is to create a "stronger economic base through increased live beds." According to Policy Objective 2.3.3 of the Plan, "In order to enhance the vitality and viability of Vail, renewal and redevelopment in Lionshead must promote improved occupancy rates and the creation of additional bed base ("live beds" or "warm beds') through new lodging products." With that said, staff has reviewed the Plan for action items which further or enhance the policy objective seeking a stronger economic base through increased live beds. As a result of our review, we found little, if any, action items, master plan recommendations, zoning regulations, or otherwise, that could reasonably be believed to further this important policy objective. Since it is believed that this policy objective remains critical to the vitality and viability of Vail, staff believes that the Plan is in error as it fails to effectively address the Policy Objective 2.3.3 How would an addition, deletion, or change to the plan be in concert with the plan in general? • According to Chapter 2 of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, "This master plan was initiated by the Town of Vail to encourage redevelopment and new development initiatives within the Lionshead study area. Both public and private interests have recognized that Lionshead today lacks the economic vitality of Vail Village, its neighboring commercial district, and fails to offer aworld-class resort experience. Lionshead's economic potential has been inhibited by a number of recurrent themes: lack of growth in accommodation units ("hot beds', poor retail quality, the apparent deterioration of existing buildings, an uninteresting and disconnected pedestrian environment, mediocre architectural character, and the absence of incentives for redevelopment. Redevelopment is critical for Vail and Lionshead if the community is to remain a competitive four-season resort. Other resorts are spending millions of dollars to upgrade their facilities in order to attract more visitors year-round. Growth in the number of skiers annually has slowed to one to two percent, intensifying competition for market share. Skiers are spending less time skiing and more time shopping, dining out, and enjoying other off-mountain activities. As a result, the demand for quality retail shopping and a greater diversity of experiences has dramatically increased. All of these are sorely in need of improvement in Lionshead. Vail, and specifically Lionshead, will fall behind if the community fails fo upgrade the quality of its facilities and correct the existing flaws in its • primary commercial nodes. 3 This master plan, developed over a period of two years and with • extensive involvement by the community, is a comprehensive guide for property owners proposing to undertake development or redevelopment of their properties and the municipal officials responsible for planning public improvements. The plan outlines the Town's objectives and goals for the enhancement of Lionshead and proposes recommendations, incentives, and requirements for redevelopment and new development of public and private properties. It also recommends specific public improvement projects that are strategically important to the future success of Lionshead. The master plan is intended to provide direction over the next 15 to 20 years. " IV The proposed additions or changes to the Plan will not change or alter the fundamental goals and objectives of the Plan. Instead, staff believes that the additions and changes are necessary in order to ensure the continued future success of Lionshead and the community. Through the adoption of the proposed amendments the Town of Vail can be assured that a critical component to the vitality and viability of Lionshead, that is a stronger economic base through increased live beds, is maintained and enhanced as Lionshead continues to undergo both new development and redevelopment. As presently drafted, there are little, if any, actions items prescribed by the Plan which ensures that Policy Objective 2.3.3 will be achieved. A complete outline of the proposed amendments to the Lionshead • Redevelopment Master Plan is described in detail in Attachment A to this memorandum. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends that the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council of the request to amend the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, pursuant to Chapter 2, Section 2.8, Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, amending Section 2.3.3 Stronger Economic Base Through Increased Live Beds, Chapter 4Recommendations-Overall Study Area, and Chapter 5 Detailed Plan Recommendations of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Should the Commission choose to forward a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council, the Community Development Department recommends that the Commission makes the following finding, "The Commission finds that the proposed text amendments to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan comply with the review criteria outlined in Section 111 of the memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission, dated May 22, 2006, and that the amendments, as proposed, further the goals, objectives and policies, as . stated in Chapter 2 of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan." 4 • ATTACHMENT A [Additions are shown in red/Deletions are shown in ~+riLo4hrni ~„hl Policy Objective 2.3.3 -Stronger Economic Base Through Increased Live Beds In order to enhance the vitality and viability of Vail, renewal and redevelopment in Lionshead must promote improved occupancy rates and the creation of additional bed base ("live beds" or "warm beds") through new lodging products. Live beds and warm beds are best described as residential or lodging rooms or units that are designed for occupancy by visitors, guests, individuals, or families on a short term rental basis. In order to improve occupancy rates and create additional bed base in Lionshead, applications for new development and redevelopment projects which include a residential component shall provide live beds in the form of accommodation units, fractional fee club units, lodge dwelling units, timeshare units, attached accommodation units, or dwelling units which are included in a voluntary rental management program and available for short term rental. Further, it is the expressed goal of this Plan that in addition to creating additional bed base through new lodging products, there shall be no net loss of existing live beds within the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan study area. Chapter 4Recommendations-Overall Study Area • Note: According to Chapter 4 of the Master Plan, "This section of the master plan addresses issues that affecf Lionshead as a whole. These issues -and recommendations to address them -should be considered in all planning and policy decisions as Lionshead redevelops." 4.13 Live Beds The maintenance, preservation, and enhancement of the live bed base are critical to the future success of Lionshead and as such, special emphasis should be placed on increasing the number of live beds in Lionshead as the area undergoes redevelopment. The Lionshead area currently contains a large percentage of the Town's overall lodging bed base. The bed base in Lionshead's consists of a variety of residential and lodging products including hotels, condominiums, timeshares and hybrids of all three. The vast majority of live beds in Lionshead. are not accommodation units in hotels, but instead, in dwelling units in residential condominiums such as the Vail 21, Treetops, Antlers Lodge, Lion Square Lodge, Lifthouse Lodge, Landmark Tower and Townhomes, Lionshead Arcade, and Montaneros, all of which have some form of rental/property management program that encourages short term rental of dwelling units when the owners are not in residence. It has been the experience in Lionshead that condominium projects which include a voluntary rental management program have occupancy rates which exceed the occupancy rate of hotel products, and therefore tend to provide more live beds and produce more • lodging tax revenues to the Town. 5 Applications for new development or redevelopment which maintain, preserve, • and enhance the live bed base in Lionshead have a significantly greater chance of approval in the development review process than those which do not. 4.13.1 Live Bed Definition Pursuant to Policy Objective 2.3.3, live beds (and warm beds) are defined as residential or lodging rooms or units that are designed for occupancy by visitors, guests, individuals, or families, on a short term rental basis. A live bed may include the following residential products: accommodation units, fractional fee club units, lodge dwelling units, timeshare units, attached accommodation units, and dwelling units which are included in a voluntary rental management program and available for short term rental. 4.13.2 Location of Live Beds Live beds should be located in Lionshead pursuant to the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 and 2 zone districts. All properties within Lionshead, when developing or redeveloping and providing new residential or lodging products, should provide live beds as defined herein. 4.13.2 Review of New Development and Redevelopment Projects The Planning and Environmental Commission shall consider the policies and direction given by this Plan with respect to live beds when reviewing new development and redevelopment projects in Lionshead. Applications for new development or redevelopment which maintain, preserve, and enhance the live bed base in Lionshead have a significantly greater • chance of approval in the development review process than those which do not. A proposal's adherence to the policies contained in the adopted master plan will be one of the factors analyzed by staff, the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC), the Design Review Board (DRB), and the Town Council (as applicable) in determining whether to approve or disapprove the specific proposal. 5.13 The Marriott With approximately 276 rooms, the Marriott is the largest ~ supply of hot beds in Lionshead. The single largest structure in Lionshead, it is also very visible, especially from the west. It is consequently a high priority renovation project, and all reasonable measures should be taken by the Town of Vail to encourage and facilitate its enhancement. Specific issues regarding this property are as follows: 5.13.1 Redevelopment or Development of the Parking Structure The best opportunity for new development on the Marriott property is the existing parking structure (figure 5-17). If this site is developed, attention should be given to the relationship between the development, Gore Creek, the Gore Creek recreation path, and the west day lot. Vertical development should step back from the recreation path, and there should be a clear separation (most likely a landscape buffer) between the public space of the recreation path and the private space of the residential units. 6 . 5.13.2 Infilt Opportunities There are several tennis courts on the south side of the Marriott. This area presents an opportunity for low-rise infill development that eases the visual and physical transition from the existing structure to the Gore Creek recreation path. 5.13.3 Opportunities for Facade Renovation Exterior renovation of the Marriott is a community priority, but the size and dimensions of the structure present a challenge, and it is unlikely that the architectural design guidelines (see chapter 8) can be fully met. However, this should not discourage exterior renovation, and the Town of Vail Design Review Board should insure that the intent of the guidelines is met. (This is a basic premise of the architectural design guidelines, relevant to all existing buildings in Lionshead.) 5.13.4 West Lionshead Circle in Front of the Marriott Any future development or redevelopment of the Marriott property should include a continuous secondary pedestrian walk on the south side of West Lionshead Circle. A pavement snowmelt system is strongly recommended because of icing problems on the walkway in winter. 5.19.3 Preservation of Existing Accommodation Units The Marriott presently contains 276 short term accommodation units. In addition, the Marriott also contains a restaurant, lounge, spa, and meeting • space facilities incidental to the operation of the hotel. Given the importance and need for short term accommodations to the vitality and success of the community, any future redevelopment of the site shall ensure the preservation of short term accommodation units on the site. The preservation of short term accommodations should focus on maintaining the number of existing hotel beds and the amount of gross residential square footage on the site as well as requiring the preservation of 276 accommodation units. With this in mind, the quality of the existing accommodation unit room could be upgraded and the rooms could be reconfigured to create multi-room suites. In no instance, however, should the amount of gross residential floor area devoted to accommodation units be reduced. In fact, opportunities for increasing the number of accommodation units beyond the existing 276 units already on-site should be evaluated during the development review process. For example, the construction of "attached accommodation units", as defined in the Zoning Regulations, could significantly increase the availability of short term rental opportunities within the building. 5.15 Lionshead Inn, Vailglo, Enzian Cluster Redevelopment and/or enhancement of the buildings in this cluster at West Lionshead Circle and South Frontage Road (see figure 5-19) is encouraged. 5.15.1 The Pedestrian Street The existing structures are recessed from the street, elevated above it, • and separated from it by surface parking lots. To improve the pedestrian character of the neighborhood, a better relationship with the street is 7 desirable. The principal objective for redevelopment in this area is to • engage the surrounding pedestrian environment, either by adding building elements toward the street or by lowering the finish grade at the entries so that they are closer to the level of the street. 5.15.2 Access and Street Frontage The existing accesses into these properties should be adjusted to align with the opposing curb cuts on the east side of West Lionshead Circle. The street edge should be strengthened for pedestrian use with landscaping, enhanced signage, and retaining walls as described in the site design guidelines, chapter six. The Lionshead inn k-as secured a permit in the past which is now expired to add another vehicular access point from the South Frontage Road, and the .property owner is encouraged to pursue the ~~~~ opportunity to screen the surface parking lot on the north and regrade the lot to reduce the significant cross-slope. 5.15.3 Building Height Because it sits considerably above the frontage road, the Lionshead Inn is encouraged to explore a ground level or lower floor infill solution if development scenarios are pursued. Additional building height, if proposed, must conform to the design guidelines. 5.15.4 Live Beds (Applicant's Proposal) • The Lionshead Inn properties (which now include the previous Vailglo Lodge) are currently operated as hotel lodging facilities. The existing structures both externally and internally are in need of redevelopment to upgrade the appearance of the facilities and the quality of the guest experience. The structures currently contain accommodation units and other lodge amenities. In order to preserve the existing live bed base on the property, the Lionshead Inn properties, if redeveloped, should include live beds (as defined herein) with an equal amount of gross residential floor area as exists today on the properties. 5.15.4 Preservation of Existing Accommodation Units (Staff Proposal) The Lionshead Inn and Vailglo Lodge presently contain 85 accommodation units. Given the importance and need for short term accommodations to the vitality and success of the community, any future redevelopment of the sites shall ensure the preservation of short term accommodation on the site. The preservation of short term accommodations should focus on maintaining the number of existing live beds and the amount of gross residential square footage devoted to that use on the site. With this in mind, the quality of the existing accommodation unit rooms could be upgraded and the rooms could be reconfigured to create multi-room suites. In no instance, however, should the amount of gross residential floor area devoted to accommodation units be reduced. In fact, opportunities for increasing the number of accommodation units beyond the existing 85 units already on-site should • be evaluated during the development review process. For example, the construction of "attached accommodation units", "lodge dwelling units", 8 "timeshare units", "fractional fee club units", as defined in the Zoning Regulations, could significantly increase the availability of short term rental opportunities within the building. • 9 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING ,• May 8, 2006 7~WN Of YAiZ ' PROJECT ORIENTATION -Town Council Chambers -PUBLIC WELCOME 12:00 pm MEMBERS PRESENT Doug Cahill Dick Cleveland Anne Gunion Bill Jewitt Rollie Kjesbo Bill Pierce Site Visits: MEMBERS ABSENT Chas Bernhardt 1. Ritz Carlton Residences - 728 West Lionshead Circle 2. Eagle River Water and Sanitation District - 2734 Snowberry Drive Driver: Warren Swearing in of Anne Gunion by Lorelei Donaldson, Town of Vail Town Clerk Public Hearing -Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm .1. A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a text amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendments, Vail Town Code, to allow for an amendment to Section 12-21-14, Restrictions in Specific Zones on Excessive Slopes, Vail Town Code, to increase the amount of allowable site coverage on lots with excessive slopes from 15% to 20%, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0020) Applicant: Helmut Reiss, represented by Isom & Associates Planner: Matt Gennett /Bill Gibson ACTION: Approved with Modifications (shown below) MOTION: Rollie Kjesbo SECOND: Bill Jewitt VOTE: 5-0-1 (Cleveland opposed) " 2. In order to protect the natural land form and vegetation on steep slopes, not more than sixty percent (60%) of the total site area may be disturbed from present conditions by construction activities. The Design Review Board (DRB) may approve site disturbance in excess of the sixty percent (60%) maximum if specific design criteria warrant the extent of the requested deviation." In the absence of Matt Gennett, Bill Gibson presented the project according to the memorandum. Steve Isom, the applicant's representative, stated that the proposal set forth with Staff's help seemed sufficient. Dick Cleveland felt that the amendment was neither necessary nor desirable and he was in opposition to the change. Page 1 Bill Jewitt commented that the argument of safety was not a good enough one to justify this proposal. He thought that citizens dealing with thirty percent slopes should be treated as fairly as those without thirty percent slopes. Bill Pierce stated that this regulation would offer a lot more flexibility in site planning for sites with steep slopes. This change would limit the number of homes which masses were located almost directly on the road. Doug Cahill thought that the new regulation followed the original intent of the Code. The Design Review Board should have the latitude to ask an applicant to reduce his/her site coverage to less than 20% if necessary. 2. A request for a final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-6D-3, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, to allow for a public utility and public service use (water tank), located at 2734 Snowberry Drive/Lot 14, Block 9, Vail Intermountain, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0031) Applicant: Eagle River Water and Sanitation District Planner: Elisabeth Reed ACTION: Approved MOTION: Rollie Kjesbo SECOND: Bill Jewitt VOTE: 6-0-0 CONDITION(S): 1. Prior to receipt of a grading permit from the Town of Vail Public Works Department, a letter from the property owner of Lot 15, Block 9, Vail Intermountain Subdivision, shall be submitted to and accepted by the Town of Vail Community Development Department that grants the applicant permission to re-grade and re-seed the areas of Lot 15 that • will be disturbed as a result of the removal of the existing water tank. 2. Prior to construction, a copy of the de-watering permit shall be submitted to the Town of Vail Public Works Department. 3. Prior to construction, a staging plan and Public Way permit shall be submitted to the Town of Vail Public Works Department. 4. Prior to November 1, 2007, the applicant shall mitigate the visual impacts of the above grade portions of the tank to a reasonable standard. 5. This approval shall be contingent upon the applicant receiving Town of Vail approval of the design review application and required landscape plan associated with this conditional use permit request. Elisabeth Reed presented the project according to the memorandum. Jim Boyd, the applicant, expanded upon the description of the proposal and made himself available for questions. Doug Cahill asked if the DRB would be reviewing this application further. Elisabeth responded that the DRB had conceptually reviewed the proposal and would review it a final time at their next public hearing. Doug Cahill asked Jim Boyd to further describe the soil stability issues related to the water tank site. Jim explained the soil conditions and how the structure had been engineered to address the issues. Larry Kollusman, adjacent property owner, stated that he was opposed to a large concrete water tank being constructed above his house due to the "unsightliness" of the structure, which might Page 2 result in decreased property values for himself and his neighbors. He would not be opposed to the installation of a below grade water tank structure, however. He cannot currently see the • existing tank, but believes the proposed tank will lie directly in the line of sight from his house. He also noted the number of trees proposed for removal. Jim Boyd acknowledged the potential impact to this adjacent property owner. He noted that the ERWSD had not finalized its landscape/re-vegetation plan. The District was planning to screen the tank from this concerned neighbor's house with a berm and tree plantings. The ERWSD was willing to plant additional trees to improve the screening of the tank. Larry Kollusman was also concerned about the proposed tank being four times larger than the existing tank. He suggested that a more extensive soils test might prove that the tank could be buried. Dick Cleveland asked about the rationale for a tank of this size. Jim Boyd responded that the tank was built in the 1970's. Additional water storage was needed to accommodate population growth and to meet fire flow needs created by sprinkler systems being required in recently constructed houses. He noted the flows analyst for the District would be more familiar with these questions. Dick Cleveland asked why the bids were not viable. Jim Boyd responded that the bids were too high and did not even take into account soil conditions and ground water conditions. Their engineers recommended placing the tank above ground. • Larry Kollusman noted that there were large new homes being constructed on similar slopes along this street and believed today's request was only a cost issue. Bill Pierce asked how it compared with the tank on the ski hill. Jim Boyd responded that it is approximately one million gallons. Bill Pierce verified that the tank would not be taller than the tank it is replacing. He noted that the DRB needs to ensure this is well screened. Anne Gunion believed the request met the first criteria for review, the second criteria, and the third criteria. She believed adequate screening would make the tank comply with criteria number four. She wanted to see a landscape plan, or thought that the tank should be constructed below grade. She also wanted to see a letter submitted from a soils engineer. Dick Cleveland agreed with Commissioner Gunion. He wanted to see documentation justifying the size of the proposed tank. If the tank was screened as well as today's tank was, he was comfortable with the proposal. He was concerned about the proposed trees actually screening the tank. Something other than a solid paint color should be considered as well. Otherwise he was comfortable with the request. Bill Jewitt was comfortable with the request and believed the PEC's concerns were actually DRB issues. The goal should be to save the taxpayers on construction costs, but provide adequate landscaping to screen the tank. Rollie Kjesbo believed the ERWSD would not spend extra funds on a tank size that was not • warranted, and believed the landscaping and screening are DRB issues. Page 3 Doug Cahill noted the growth in the adjacent neighborhood, and noted the need to construct a safe structure. He also asked if an additional berm or retaining walls could be constructed to • better screen the tank. He noted the challenges of landscaping the site. He requested that Jim Boyd explain the proposed construction schedules. Jim Boyd responded that construction will not begin before late June and the ERWSD is concerned about the availability of bidders for construction this summer. 3. A request for final review of an appeal of an administrative action, pursuant to Section 12-3-3, Appeals, Vail Town Code, appealing a staff determination that an observatory is not an architectural projection allowed to extend above the building height limit, 1979 Sunburst Drive/Lot 12, Vail Valley Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PRJ05-0417) Appellant: Ned Gwathmey and Todd Kramer; Gwathmey, Pratt, Shultz Architects Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Staff determination overturned MOTION: Dick Cleveland SECOND: Bill Jewitt VOTE: 4-2-0 (Pierce, Cahill opposed) Bill Gibson presented the project according to the memorandum. Ned Gwathmey, the applicant, stated that the approved space was not habitable. He requested that the space not be regarded as Gross Residential Floor Area. This was simply an architectural feature because it was not proposed to be occupied space. Both the Design Review Board and the neighbors seemed had no problems with the proposal, he stated. Anne Gunion asked if the drawings included in the memorandum matched those that were being proposed by the applicant today. • It was verified that the drawings included in the memorandum were no longer applicable. Doug Cahill asked about the proposed material for the tower element. Ned Gwathmey stated that the roof would be cast aluminum. He further explained the elevation drawings to the Commission. Ned Gwathmey asked if it would be helpful to have the owner explain the use. Dick Cleveland commented that such explanation would not be necessary. He felt that this proposal was clearly an architectural projection that warranted a height increase. He was in support of overturning the Staff's determination. Bill Jewitt also felt that the space was not habitable and was only an architectural projection. Rollie Kjesbo agreed with Commissioner Jewitt. Bill Pierce commented that as much as he would like to approve the projection due to its architectural merit, he felt that the precedent set in doing so would not be worth the approval. Anne Gunion said that whether it was occupied or not was not the issue. She stated that the guidelines were intended to provide for varying architecture. She viewed this as habitable floor area due to the definition of habitable floor area, but felt that the projection was warranted anyway. Doug Cahill stated that he viewed the space under question as habitable. It was clearly • designed, with glass, to be habitable by a person. Page 4 Anne Gunion further stated that occupied space was very different than habitable space. The element was far more a projection than a roof. • 4. A request for, a final review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7H-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, and a final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-7H-2, Permitted and Conditional Uses; Basement or Garden Level, and 12-7H-3, Permitted and Conditional Uses; First Floor on Street Level, Vail Town Code, to allow for the development of 4 additional multi-family residential dwelling units (total of 111 dwelling units), located at 728 West Lionshead Circle/Lot 2, West Day Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (Ritz-Carlton Residences) (PEC05-0021 and PEC05-0022) Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc., represented by Jay Peterson Planner: Warren Campbell Amendment to the Major Exterior Alteration ACTION: Approved with condition(s) MOTION: Rollie Kjesbo SECOND: Bill Jewitt, VOTE: 6-0-0 For Design Review 1) That the Developer submits a complete application to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for the final review and approval of the proposed development plan by the Town of Vail Design Review Board, prior to making an application for the issuance of a building permit for any of the Ritz-Carlton Residences improvements. Prior to Submitting for Building Permits 2) That the Developer submits a Construction Staging Plan to the Town of Vail . Community Development Department for the review and approval of the proposed staging plan by the Town of Vail Public Works Department, prior to the issuance of a building permit for the Ritz-Carlton Residences improvements. 3) That the Developer prepares aRitz-Carlton Residences Site Art in Public Places Plan. for input and comment by the Town of Vail Art in Public Places Board, prior to the issuance of a building permit for the Ritz-Carlton Residences site improvements. Subject to the above input and comment by the Art in Public places Board, Vail Associates will determine the type and location of the art to be provided. Said Plan shall include the funding for a minimum of $100,000.00 in public art improvements to be developed in conjunction with the Ritz-Carlton Residences site. The implementation of the Plan will be reasonably incorporated by Vail Associates into the Ritz-Carlton Residences construction schedule in accordance with generally prevailing construction practices. 4) That the Developer submits a complete set of civil engineered drawings of the Approved Development Plans including the required off-site improvements, to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for review and approval of the drawings, prior to making application for the issuance of a building permit for the Ritz- Carlton Residences improvements. Prior to Reauestina a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy 5) That the Developer provides deed-restricted employee housing that complies with the • Town of Vail Employee Housing requirements (Chapter 12-13) 9 employees, and that said restrictions shall be made available for occupancy, prior to the issuance of a Page 5 temporary certificate of occupancy for the Ritz-Carlton Residences improvements. In addition, the deed-restrictions shall be legally executed by the Developer and duly recorded with the Eagle County Clerk 8 Recorder's Office, prior to the issuance of a • temporary certificate of occupancy for the Ritz-Carlton Resiidences improvements. The Developer may provide required employee housing on an interim basis, not to exceed four (4) years (November 28, 2008) except that ultimately the Developer will be required to furnish permanent facilities for the Ritz-Carlton Residences employee housing requirements. 6) That the Developer shall be assessed a transportation impact fee in the amount of $5,000 per increased vehicle trip in the peak hour generated (56 trips), or $280,000, and a fee of $6,500 for the increased peak hour vehicle trips (6 trips) or $39,000, created by the amendment to add four additional dwelling units, as a result of the Ritz-Carlton Residences improvements. The total fee of $319,000 shall be paid in full by the Developer prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy or certificate of occupancy for the Ritz-Carlton Residences improvements. At the sole discretion of the Town of Vail Public Works Director, said fee may be waived in full, or part, based upon the completion of certain off-site improvements. If the improvements as shown on the plans entitled "The Ritz-Carlton Residences (based on CDOT requirements)", dated October 21, 2005, and as approved on November 28, 2005, by the PEC are constructed and completed by the Developer, said fee shall be waived in full by the Town. Amendment to the Conditional Use Permit ACTION: Approved MOTION: Rollie Kjesbo SECOND: Bill Jewitt, VOTE: 6-0-0 Warren Campbell gave a presentation per the staff memorandum, highlighting the changes that • the applicant was proposing. Jay Peterson, representing Vail Resorts, added some comments to the initial presentation, stressing the amount of open space that would be maintained on the site with this proposed amendment on the western side of the building. Mr. Petersen addressed several comments from the pre-meeting regarding the future layout of retail within the area known as "West Lionshead" and how the areas being set aside within the Ritz-Carlton would help to add to the success of retail in "West Lionshead". Mr. Petersen added that he had spoken with the attorney from Vail Spa, who commented that he wished that no after-hours establishment such as a bar ever be installed in the northeast corner of the Ritz-Carlton. Sob Fitzgerald, of 4240 Architecture, commented on the architectural story, saying that the proposal presented today was simply an exclamation point to the original proposal. The south western corner under discussion had never been proposed for open space, but had originally been proposed as the area to locate a lift house. There was no public comment. The Commission generally expressed its support of the amendments as the changes allowed the building to tamper more towards West Forest Road and helped to screen the new parking garage entry for the Gore Creek Residences. Commissioner Cleveland stated that he was fearful of the "creep" in size of projects through amendments made after initial approval, however, he felt the amendment made sense. Commissioner Jewitt stated that he still had concerns over the viability of retail/commercial/restaurants in the Ritz-Carlton structure and in • the possible future portal of "West Lionshead". Page 6 5. A request for a final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Chapter 12-8E-3, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of a private club; 151 Vail Lane/Lot 2, Mill Creek Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0032) Applicant: Lodge Properties, Inc., Planner George Ruther ACTION: Approved MOTION: Rollie Kjesbo SECOND: Bill Jewitt VOTE: 5-0-1 (Pierce recused) In the absence of George Ruther, Russ Forrest presented the project according to the memorandum. Doug Cahill asked about negative effects of traffic. Jay Peterson said that while the parking club generates traffic, those that do not belong to the parking club but do belong to the private club will park in the Vail Village parking structure. This club will likely not create additional traffic. There was no public comment. The commissioners expressed their support of the application. 6. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for Ski Base Recreation 2 zone district on a 5.13 parcel of land commonly referred to as the "Front Door USFS land exchange parcel", located at 151 Vail Lane/ (A complete legal description is available at the Community Development Department), • and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0014) Applicant: United States of America, by and through the Forest Service, represented by Vail Resorts Development Company Planner: George Ruther ACTION: Approved MOTION: Rollie Kjesbo SECOND: Bill Jewitt VOTE: 5-0-1 (Pierce recused) In the absence of George Ruther, Russ Forrest presented the project according to the memorandum. Jay Peterson clarified that the Forest Service no longer is the applicant, as the property is now owned by Vail Resorts. Jim Lamont, representative of the Vail Village Homeowners Association, is in favor of the project but there are adjacent property owners who are concerned about the project. The primary concern of these adjacent owners is the preservation of open space. The concern is that what is now publicly accessible land should stay accessible. There is a consistency with the Tract D covenants that prohibit above ground development unrelated to skiing. They would like to know if the area will be publicly accessible. Russ Forest stated that in Page 7 of the memorandum, the skier services building will only be one story. Any change of the development plan will be required to go through the public process. • Page 7 Tom Braun stated that there are requirements in the conditional approvals to provide pedestrian easements from the skier property to Vail Road to the West. The access required by the covenant will be maintained. Jay Peterson showed the view corridor on the map and noted where pedestrian easements exist. Covenants on the property will not occur because it will cause problems in the future. He also stated that this zoning will require the most public scrutiny. Bill Jewitt said that when the project went through Town Council, there were restrictions put on the project where open space is required to be used for public events. Jim Lamont requested a letter from the Town outlining the requirements of the pedestrian easements and other protections of the property. Jay Peterson stated the approval is what it is and that the development plan is the detailed outline of the project. Jim Lamont said that the public needs to have access to the surface of the site that is not being developed. Bill Jewitt mentioned that the comments by Jim Lamont are not pertinent to the current discussion. Jim Lamont responded that this is an important issue and needs to be discussed on the record. Jay Peterson outlined the requirements of how the land will be publicly accessed. He then read • text from the White River National Forest report by Tom Nacey. Jim Lamont asked about the agreement with Vail Resorts for public access for special events. Russ Forrest responded that the DIA will include such agreements. Jay Peterson said that the DIA will be final before TCO. The Commissioners expressed their support for the proposal. 7. A request for a final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-7H-5 Conditional Uses: Generally, to allow for a seasonal use or structure for conferences and conventions, located in Tract A, Lot 4, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 1 Addition 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0030) Applicant: Lion Square Lodge, represented by Bill Anderson Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: WITHDRAWN 8. A request for a final review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7H-7, Major Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the renovation of the Lion's Square Lodge North, located at 660 West Lionshead Place/Lot 8, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0019) Applicant: Lion's Square Lodge North Condominium Association, represented by Viele Development Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Tabled to May 22, 2006 MOTION: Rollie Kjesbo SECOND: Bill Jewitt VOTE: 6-0-0 • Page 8 9. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for proposed amendments to Chapters 12-21, Hazard • Regulations, 14-7, Geologic/Environmental Hazards, and 14-10, Design Review Standards and Guidelines, Vail Town Code, to include wildfire hazard in the Hazard Regulations, and to require defensible space and Class A roofs in high and extreme wildfire hazard zones, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0029) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Rachel Friede ACTION: Tabled to June 12, 2006 MOTION: Dick Cleveland SECOND: Rollie Kjesbo VOTE: 6-0-0 Rachel Friede made a presentation per the staff memorandum. Bill Jewitt said he cannot support the addition of seasonal use and structures as a conditional use to LMU-1 because the regulations for this land use, especially tents, need to be amended. Dick Cleveland suggested that this use only be allowed for a maximum of 30 days and should be split into seasonal and temporary, with separate regulations.. Staff will propose these changes in the future. The Commission agreed that the word "plan" be added to "inclusion of employee housing" in order to allow a plan that may be coordinated with current housing initiatives. Dick Cleveland said that the Open Space and Recreation District should not add "and runs" to the conditional uses and that the Cascade runs should stay legally nonconforming. He is concerned that this may open the door for more runs in the O District. He was also concerned about allowing "Ski lifts, towns and runs, not including lift loading and unloading areas" in the . Natural Area Preservation District because this is our most restrictive zone district. Staff will provide a map showing the O and NAP Districts that border the ski mountain at the next meeting. Regarding changes to Chapter 12-18, Rollie Kjesbo asked whether this would trigger 250s. Staff responded that this text amendment would confirm that buildings that are over on dwelling units per acre would then trigger a 250, as they have used up all allowable GRFA. Dick Cleveland made a motion to table this item to June 12, 2006 so that Staff can return with changes and additional information. 10. A request fora recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment„Vail Town Code, for amendments to Section 12-7H-5, Conditional Uses; Generally (On all Levels of a Building or Outside of a Building), to allow for seasonal use or structures as a conditional use in Lionshead Mixed Use I District; Section 12-7H-18, Mitigation of Development Impacts, to clarify the inclusion of employee housing as a mitigation of development impacts; Section 12-8A-3, Conditional Uses, to allow for ski runs as a conditional use of the Agricultural and Open Space District; Section 12-8C-3, Conditional Uses, to allow for ski lifts not including loading and unloading areas as a conditional use of the Natural Area Preservation District; Subsection 12-18-56, Density Control, to clarify limitations on structures which do not conform to density controls; Chapter 14-3, Residential Access, Driveway and Parking Standards, to clarify standards for access, driveway and parking for commercial properties; and Chapter 14-6, Grading Standards, to clarify requirements for retaining walls, Vail Town Code, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0026) Applicant: Town of Vail • Planner: Rachel Friede ACTION: Tabled to June 12, 2006 MOTION: Rollie Kjesbo SECOND: Bill Jewitt VOTE: 6-0-0 Page 9 Rachel Friede made a presentation per the staff memorandum. This item was a worksession. Tom Talbot, the Town of Vail Wildfire Specialist and Bill Carlson, the Environmental Officer, were • present to answer any questions. The Commission expressed an interest in creating concrete requirements for a Wildfire Specialist. They were also concerned about creating a cottage industry. Tom Talbot said that there are some credentials we could require of the specialist such as those from the National Wildfire Coordination Group. Also, the Eagle County Wildfire Coordinate, Erik Lundgren, may be able to do inspections for free. The Commission expressed concern over Wildfire Regulations that would require clear cutting trees. Tom Talbot said that the goal is not to require trees cut down, but to protect the neighborhood. Dick Cleveland was concerned about legislation that is open to interpretation. Tom Talbot said that there may be ways to enforce legislation and get the right results through lot-by-lot analysis. Doug Cahill wants regulations that inform property owners of the mitigation that will be required before they begin the process, as to not burden them. Staff informed them that the requirements will be triggered by new development, residential additions over 500 square feet, commercial additions over 1000 square feet or an increase in dwelling units, accommodation units or fractional fee units. Tom Talbot said that the VFES has offered assessments for free to homeowners in Vail. As a result, there have been some successful mitigation projects. The Commission asked about the creation of the Wildfire Hazard Map. Tom Talbot said that the • changes in scope, fuel materials, etc., change the spread of fire and thus are reflected in the hazard designation.. The data used to create the map is a combination of data from Eagle County and slot-by-lot assessment done by Tom Talbot. Anne Gunion asked the burden placed on Staff to review plans. Rachel Friede said that the burden of review will be placed on the planning team, as to not burden the building team any more. The Commission agreed that there needs to be an education of the Commission and the public. During public comment, Jim Lamont of the Vail Village Homeowners Association said that the current system is set up for more landscaping and keeping the trees. The public wants standards and criteria, otherwise, we are not talking to the right body for this regulatory process. There needs to be correlation between design review requirements for landscaping and these regulations. Changing the culture for fire mitigation will be difficult until people understand clearly what they have to do. He said there maybe covenant conflicts with design standards to allow for metal roofs. Anne Gunion said this could be approached like Chicago, where building requirements are paramount, and not the defensible space. Instead, perhaps the requirement should be to use fire protected materials and alternative materials. Also, with specialists, not all agree or are the same. • Page 10 Rollie Kjesbo tabled this item until the June 12, 2006, PEC meeting at the request of Staff. At the next meeting, Staff will provide a lesson in FireWise, and will go on site visits to evaluate the • Wildfire Hazard Rating of each lot. 11. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of an amendment to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, pursuant to Sectidn 2.8, Adoption and Amendment of the Master Plan, Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, to amend the Lionshead Study Area Boundaries and Chapter 5, Detailed Plan Recommendations, to include the study "West Lionshead" area, generally located at 646, 862, 890, 923, 934, 953, 1000, and 1031 South Frontage Road West/Lot 54 and Tract K of Glen Lyon Subdivision, Tracts C and D, Vail Village Filing 2, and several unplatted parcels (a more complete legal description is available at the Community Development Department), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0008) Applicant: Vail Resorts Development Company, Town of Vail, and Glen Lyon Office Building General Partnership Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Tabled to May 22, 2006 MOTION: Rollie Kjesbo SECOND: Bill Jewitt VOTE: 6-0-0 12. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, .Vail Town Code, and Section 2.8, Adoption and Amendment of the Master Plan, Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, to allow for amendments to Articles 12-7H, Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District, and 12-71, Lionshead Mixed Use 2 District, Vail Town Code, and the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, to require no net loss of parking, no net loss of employee housing units and no net loss of accommodation units in Lionshead Mixed Use 1 and Lionshead Mixed Use 2 Districts, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0028) Applicant: Town of Vail • Planner: George Ruther ACTION: Tabled to May 22, 2006 MOTION: Rollie Kjesbo SECOND: Bill Jewitt VOTE: 6-0-0 13. A request for a final review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7J-12, Major Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of the Timberline Lodge, located at 1783 North Frontage Road/Lots 9-12, Buffehr Creek Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC05-0080) Applicant: Timberline Roost Lodge, LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: George Ruther ACTION: Tabled to June 12, 2006 MOTION: Rollie Kjesbo SECOND: Bill Jewitt VOTE: 6-0-0 14. Approval of April 24, 2006 minutes MOTION: Rollie Kjesbo recused) SECOND: Dick Cleveland VOTE: 5-0-1 (Pierce 15. Information Update 16. Adjournment MOTION: Bill Jewitt SECOND: Rollie Kjesbo VOTE: 6-0-0 • Page 11 The applications `and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular • office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24-hour notification. Please call (970) 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published May 5, 2006, in the Vail Daily. • Page 12 PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF COLORADO } } SS. COUNTY OF EAGLE } I, Steve Pope, do solemnly swear that I am a qualified representative of the Vail Daily. That the same Daily newspaper printed, in whole or in part and published in the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, and has a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been published continuously and uninterruptedly in said County of Eagle for a period of more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement and that sa+d newspaper has Published the requested legal notice and advertisement as requested. The Vail Daily is an accepted legal advertising medium, only for jurisdictions operating under Colorado's Home Rule provision. ThaC the annexed Vega] notice or advertisement was published in the regular and entire issue of every number of said daily newspaper for the period of 1 consecutive insertions; and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated May 19 A.D. 2006 and that the last publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated May 19 A.D. 2006. In witness whereof has here unto set my hand this 26th day May, 2006. / / ~, Publi~r(~eneral Ma~ager/Editor Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado this 25ik of May 2006. /~ Pamela Joan Schatz _,~~~ Notary Public ,~y Pue~ ,;~.,ae.....a.~~ a (~ My Commission expires: November 1, 2007 opts ul,p,~. gCN 1~', a~ '~ ''as•a'ea C ~.~OFOd~ PLANNNiG ANO ENVBIONMENTAL COMMIS• SIGN PUBLIC MEETNG May xz 2666 PROJECT ORIENTATION -Town Coundl Ctwm• hers • PUBLICWELCOME 2:00 pm LUNCH WILL NOT BE SERVED MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT BIIIJr!witt SNeYisits: 1, Driver: Public Hearing -Town Council Chambers 2:D0 pm 1. A request for a recommendation to Me Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3.7, Amendment, Vail Town Cotle, and Section 2.8, Adoption and Amendment of Me Master Plaq Uanshead Redevelopment Master Plan, to allow for amendments to Articles 12-7H, Lionshead Mixed Use 1 Distdd, and 12.71, Lionshead Mixed Use 2 District, Vail Town Code, and the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, to require no net loss of parking, no net loss of employee housing units acrd no net bss of accommodation units in Lions• head Mixed Use t and Lionshead Mixed Use 2 Districts, and setting forts details in regard thereto, (PECO6-0D28y Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: George Ruttier I Rachel Frieda ACTION: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 2. A request for a variance from Section 12fi0.9, Site Coverage, pursuant to Chapter i2• 17, Variances, Yail Town Gade, to allrn+ for a resi- dential addkbn, located at 1100 Homsiver CkcleRot 7, Block 1, Vail Village Fling 8, and set- tt~ nh details in regard Mereto. (PECO6- y Applicam: Phillip ant Jennifer Mar Rz, represened Itt+Fritzlan Pierce Architects Planner: Mat! Gannett AI:nON: Tailed ro June 12, 21106 MtOnON: SECOND: VOTE: 3. A request for a final review d a var• iarx:e, Iran Section t2-6B•6, Setbacks, Veil Town Gods, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to ~- lowfor agarage addition within the front Se16a61r, located at 1462 Aspen Grove LaneRot 11, Bock 2, Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing 4, and sel6rrg forts details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0034y Applicant: Matmew and Gods Gobec, represented by John M. Perkins, AIA Planner: ManGennett ACTION:Tabled to June 12, 2006 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 4. A request for a final review of a var lance, from Secuon 12-6D•6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Cbapler 12-17, Variances, to al- low fa a new single family residence wthin Me front and side setbacks, located at 174D Sierra TraillLot 22, Vail Y+Ilage West Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto (PECO6-0015y Applicant: Las Soks, represented by Nhchael Suman Architect Planner: MaOGennett ACTION: Tabled to June 12, 2006 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 5, A request far a recommendation to Me Vail Town Council of an amendment tq Me Li• onshead RedeueMpmem Master Plan, pursuant to Sed'wn 2.8, Adoption arrd Amendment of the Mas- ter Plan, Lionshead Redeveopment Master Plan, to amend the Lionshead Study Area Boundaries and Chapter 5, Detailed Plan Recommendations, to inducts Me study 'West Lbrrshead' area, gen- erally located at 646, 862, 890, 923, 934, 953, 11100, and 1031 South Frontage Road WesVLot 54 and Tract K of Glen Lyon Subdivision, Tracts C and D, Vail Village Filing 2, and several unplatted parcels (amore canplete legal description is avail• able atthe Community Development Depart- (pEt)yMng forth detais in regard Mereio, Applicant: Vail Resorts Devel opmeM Comppany, Town of Veit, ant Glen Lyon Office Building General Partnershry Planner: Warren Campbell ACT10N: Tabled ro Jtme 26, 2006 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 6. A request for a final review of a major exterior aieration, pursuant to Sadler 72.7H-7, Major Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow br the renoratlon of the Li• Doti Square Lodge North, located at 660 West Li• arsheatl PlacelLq B, Block 1, Vail Lionshead FB- 3, and se6ing Pooh details 'm regard thereto. (Iv~cofi•DOts) Applirxrt: Lan Square Lodge North Condominium Association, represented by Viele Develapmem Planner. Bill Gibson AcnDN:Tabled ro June 26, 2606 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Apppproval of May 8, 2006 minutes MOT11)N: SECOND: VOTE: 8. Information Update 9. A ' mment N: SECOND: VOTE: The applipGons and information about the propos• als are avaiable Wr public inspection during regu_ tar office hours at Me Town of Vail Community Dee veloprrrerR Departmerrt, 75 South Frontage Road. The pubic is Irniled to amend Me project onenta• Lion and Ote site visits Mat precede the public hear• ing in Me Town d Vail Community Developmem Departmem. Please call (970) 479-2138 for addi• 4onal infamatan. Sign langu~e i,,.r.,,,~,~.,,n is available upon re• quest with 24•haur noMicatfon. Please call (970) 479.2356, Telephone fa Me Hewing Impaired, for information. Community Devebpmem DeperMreM Pr,bVisNad 19, 2006, in Me Vail Daily.(32511635 C • • v c c y a~ .~ cti ~ ~ ~ c°s 0 ~ E C ~ E ~ C f`C `~ y N O V ~ U N ~p ~ t~Al~ ~ 7 7N ~O E7 E3 ~. ~~~ ~ LErnw °._. ~ ~~ d ~ `~ ~ ~ vvi ~ 'JCl1 ~ pC ~~Z o °~ g~° o ~ 3 r ~~ y d (n rp O O ~ •RS N •= O (O N y~~od>vc~vYn.~oxa ° a PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING • ,,, ,. June 12, 2006 PROJECT ORIENTATION -Town Council Chambers -PUBLIC WELCOME MEMBERS PRESENT Bill Pierce Anne Gunion Chas Bernhardt Doug Cahill Rollie Kjesbo Bill Jewitt Dick Cleveland Site Visits: MEMBERS ABSENT 1. Gobec Residence - 1462 Aspen Grove Lane 2. Timberline Roost Lodge -1783 North Frontage Road 3. Lionshead Climbing Wall -Lionshead Sundial Plaza Driver: George Public Hearing -Town Council Chambers 12:00 pm 2:00 pm 10 minutes 1. A request for a final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-7H-5, Conditional S Uses, Generally (On All Levels of a Building or Outside of a Building), to allow for the relocation of the Lionshead Climbing Wall to the Lionshead Sundial Plaza, located at Tract C, Vail Lionshead Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0037) Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Charlie Alexander, LMG Inc. Planner: Elisabeth Reed ACTION: Approved with condition(s) MOTION: Cleveland SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE: 7-0-0 CONDITIONS: 1. The applicant and operator shall abide with all of the operation specifications outlined within the memorandum. 2. The applicant shall replace in full any landscaping that is damaged or otherwise negatively impacted during the erection, operation, or removal of the climbing wall operation. 3. The approval of this request shall be based upon approval of the associated design review request. Elisabeth Reed presented the project according to the memorandum. Charlie Alexander responded to Doug Cahill's question regarding access to the water fountain. No public comment was offered. The Commissioners had no concerns about the proposal. 20 minutes 2. A request for a final review of an amendment to an Approved Development Plan, to allow for an increase in Gross Residential Floor Area for Lot 6; and a request for a final review of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Page 1 Code, to amend the allowable Gross Residential Floor Area within the Eleni Zneimer Subdivision located at 1701 F Buffehr Creek Road/Lot 6, Eleni Zneimer Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0039) Applicant: Patrick and Patricia Ranallo, represented by RAL Architects Planner: Warren Campbell Amendment to the Anuroved Development Plan ACTION: Approved MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Jewitt VOTE: 7-0-0 Amended Final Plat ACTION: Approved with condition(s) MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Jewitt VOTE: 7-0-0 Condition(sR 1. The applicant shall not record the Amended Final Plat. Eleni Zneimer Subdivision. Lot 6. A Re-subdivision of a Part of Tract A. Lion's Ridge Subdivision. Filing No. 2, prior to August 7, 2006, and only in the event that the Amended Final Plat. E/eni Zneimer Subdivision. A Re-subdivision of a Part of Tract A. Lion's Ridge Subdivision. Filing No. 2, approved by the commission on November 14, 2005, is not recorded prior to August 7, 2006. If the Amended Final Plat, Eleni Zneimer Subdivision. A Re-subdivision of a Part of Tract A. Lion's Ridge Subdivision. Filinar No. 2, is recorded by August 7, 2006, this approval is no longer valid and in effect. Warren Campbell gave a presentation per the staff memorandum. He added that approval of the amendment to the development plan increased the GRFA for Lot 6 and therefore the initially approved GRFA allotment. • Patrick Ranallo stated that he appreciated the Town staff working to resolve his concern and was in agreement with the condition. There was no public comment The Commissioners expressed their support of the application as a reasonable solution to the problem. Commissioner Cleveland requested that the condition• in the staff memorandum be amended to state that the Commission's approval of the proposed amended plat would not be valid if the previously approved plat for all six lots within the Eleni Zneimer Subdivision is recorded by August 7, 2006. 10 minutes 3. A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for amendments to Section 12-7H-5, Conditional Uses; Generally (On all Levels of a Building or Outside of a Building), to allow for seasonal use or structures as a conditional use in Lionshead Mixed Use I District; Section 12-7H-18, Mitigation of Development Impacts, to clarify the inclusion of employee housing as a mitigation of development impacts; Section 12-8A-3, Conditional Uses, to allow for ski runs as a conditional use in the Agricultural and Open Space District; Section 12-8C-3, Conditional Uses, to allow for ski lifts not including loading and unloading areas as a conditional use of the Natural Area Preservation District; Subsection 12-18-56, Density Control, to clarify limitations on structures which do not conform to density controls; Chapter 14-3, Residential Access, Driveway and Parking Standards, to clarify standards for access, driveway and parking for commercial properties; and Chapter 14-6, Grading Standards, to clarify requirements for retaining walls, Vail Town Code, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0026) • Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Rachel Friede ACTION: Approved Page 2 MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Jewitt VOTE:: 6-0-1 (Pierce opposed to retaining walls and density aspects) • Rachel Friede introduced the project according to the memorandum. Bill Jewitt commented that he had some concerns with the first text amendment change. He was not comfortable with the duration of the seasonal structures. Dick Cleveland suggested definitions that should be different for "seasonal" and "temporary" structures. He suggested much more latitude for temporary structures and less latitude for seasonal structures which are used as part of permanent structures. Rollie Kjesbo stated that the Commission already had the authority to address each request on an individual basis and regulate its duration, etc. Some discussion occurred regarding a process that would allow for a staff approved temporary structure that was allowed to exist for seven days. Anything that would be set up for a longer time would require a Special Events Permit or a seasonal use or structure conditional use permit. Bill Jewitt opposed the use of the word "runs" in the O and NAP Districts. Vail Resorts repeatedly mentioned that ski runs would not come down to the new lift. It is important that such option never be allowed. Some discussion occurred regarding the definitions of density control. Staff explained to the Commission that no policy change was occurring but that the proposed amendment was simply a clarification of what defined density control. • Bill Pierce asked what the intent of the "bottom of footing" language really implied. Rachel commented that this change was simply clarifying language which already existed. No public comment was offered. A motion was made that added "used more than seven days" to "seasonal use or structure." The motion changed the text amendment to Section 12-8C-3: Conditional Uses, to allow for the conditional use of "ski lifts" in the Natural Area Preservation District and omitted the text amendment to Section 12-8A-3: Conditional Uses. 20 minutes 4. A request for a worksession to review a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7J-12, Major Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of the Timberline Lodge, located at 1783 North Frontage Road/Lots 9-12, Buffehr Creek Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC05-0080) Applicant: Timberline Roost Lodge, LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: George Ruther ACTION: Tabled to June 26, 2006 MOTION: Jewitt SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE: 7-0-0 George Ruther presented the project according to the memorandum. Dominic Mauriello addressed the commission regarding the project, with Greg Gastineau and Kevin Deighan present as well. Dominic summarized the presentation with a powerpoint • presentation. Page 3 Bill Jewitt asked for a color drawing of the project, because the current 3D modeling did not include any shadows, etc. • Greg Beamis said that the building is still very big for a residential neighborhood. He is confused as to how the comments from the public could be included in this new drawing if the new rendering were drawn at the same time. He finds the exterior is exactly the same, a large, block- like building, which is not of high quality. He said the bump-outs, while used for relief, were really used to gain building height. We are only gaining 28 hotel rooms compared to the current numbers at the Roost. There is also the loss of the swimming pool. The dwelling units are not guaranteed to be hot beds. A number of the letters from the previous proposal should be included in this new packet because they are applicable to this new proposal. He does not hear that this will be an inexpensive hotel. He hopes PEC realizes that this is a neighborhood and this building should be in the character of the neighborhood. He wonders: if CDOT does not approve, will this process start over? Phyllis Dixon is concerned with meeting the requirements of the neighborhood and is concerned about calculating building height. In level 4, there are more condo units and asks whether this will comply with building height. She also asked about the easements on the property and where the snow storage will be. She is concerned about the square footage per unit, employee housing units and parking space numbers. Steven Corinelly, homeowner in Vail, said that meeting the development standards is important, and this should be taken into consideration. However, he is concerned about losing affordable hotel rooms. It doesn't make sense to attract people to town for the day, but then they have to go to Avon for a hotel room. Bill Pierce said the reduction in mass is a positive thing. It appears to have a significant effect on • the neighborhood, which still needs to be addressed. This is at the discretion of the Planning Commission. George asked if Bill needs more information. Bill wants more views from surrounding properties, showing impact on the neighborhood. Anne Gunion said from a siting standpoint, the project is much better. From the elevation studies, the stepped grades are much better. The flat rooftop is more fitting fo the site. The reduction is about 2 stories in some places. The reduction in retaining walls is good too. Could you bring the landscape through the project? She likes the current Roost because there is landscape architecture through the project. Chas Bernhardt agrees with Anne and Bill. Chas agrees that it needs to fit into the neighborhood and the last proposal did not fit in at all. To the neighbors, this has to fit the neighborhood, but is zoned differently and is twice the size, so it will be different. He clarified to a neighborhood person that they reduced GRFA by 25% since the last proposal. Roof articulation has improved since the last proposal. This is going in the right direction. Renderings would be very helpful, with shadowing, etc. Anne added that she is basing comments on the powerpoint, because she does not have the plans in front of her. George asked for 11x17 plans for the PEC for the next session. • Dick Cleveland said the reductions are positive and in the right direction. He feels comfortable with the elevations. He is surprised how big it is, but does not have enough information to make a final decision. He acknowledges that the Roost is gone, and there will be no replacement. Page 4 The new building will be larger, and necessarily so. Before any more time is spent, he would like to see CDOT approval. He would be surprised on latitude given by CDOT. Employee units • should be onsite because there is nothing left elsewhere. He would like them to consider deed restricted affordable housing on site. With the new roof plains and plans, he wonders where the mechanical systems will be. He would also like to see a rental program for the for-sale units. He asked if there is a possibility for the bike path to go onto the property- providing a great benefit to the community. He would like a massing model from the Frontage Road. Bill Jewitt said the building complies with Item 1 and item 3. Item 2: proposal does not have otherwise significant effect on the neighborhood. The effect on the neighborhood is significantly less than the previous proposal. One issue is traffic generation and seems to help with traffic issues. The height reductions have been significant. Some of the changes in the roofline and the bumpouts will make the building look a lot better. He disagrees with Dominic: commercial building in the residential neighborhood is a PEC issue, not a DRB only issue. Rollie said there are significant improvements in the height of the building. He would like to see the hillside view to the building. Doug Cahill would like to see what approvals are given by CDOT. You are in compliance with the compliance burdens. It needs to fit into the neighborhood and should seem like a smaller building. He requested AIPP plans from Dominic, if they are available. Dominic replied that with CDOT, it is necessary for a final plan. For an access permit, it will expire in a year and is a catch-22 for getting approval before coming back to the PEC. They can add back more hotel rooms, but they wanted to take out some retaining walls. 15 minutes • 5. A request for a final review of a variance, from Section 12-6B-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for a garage addition within the front setback, located at 1462 Aspen Grove LanelLot 11, Block 2, Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing 4, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0034) Applicant: Matthew and Doris Gobec, represented by John M. Perkins, AIA Planner: Matt Gennett ACTION: Approved MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Jewitt VOTE: 7-0-0 Matt Gennett made a presentation as per the staff memorandum. John Perkins, representing Matt Dorsal from Cleveland, said the staff memorandum is clear. There was no comment from the Commissioners. 45 minutes 6. A request for a worksession to discuss proposed amendments to Chapters 12-21, Hazard Regulations, 14-7, Geologic/Environmental Hazards, and 14-10, Design Review Standards and Guidelines, Vail Town Cade, to adopt Wildfire Regulations and a Wildfire Hazard Map that will require mitigation of high and extreme wildfire hazard zones in the Town of Vail, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0029) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Rachel Friede ACTION: Tabled to June 26, 2006 • MOTION: Cleveland SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE: 7-0-0 Page 5 Rachel Friede introduced the item, with Tom Talbot, Vail Fire and Emergency Services, Eric Luvgren, Eagle County Wildfire Mitigation Specialist and Sean Koenig, Vail GIS Specialist, • adding additional materials per the staff memorandum. Dick Cleveland asked about the appeal process for the site specific analysis. Staff responded that appeals are available pursuant to Chapter 12-3. Cleveland questioned if by adopting a map it impacts homeowner insurance. Eric Luvgren noted that he has not seen anyone dropped or refused coverage, but some insurance companies require mitigation. Rollie Kjesbo noted concerns about the inspection process and how it relates to construction projects. Russ Forest noted that this function would not be absorbed by the building department, but by the Fire Department. Dick suggested forwarding a recommendation to the Council for funding of a wildfire mitigation specialist. Bill Pierce asked Staff to conduct a sample assessment project for the next meeting and to include costs associated with non-combustible decks, etc. Bill Jewitt noted that this is a hazard that the Town has the responsibility to address to protect people and property. Doug Cahill suggested additional focus on the educational process. Chas recommended education for the Design Review Board. Chas Bernhardt noted his initial concerns about the county's regulations, but the staff has been • good to work with and the results have been positive. He does not believe the county process has not been as onerous as he had feared. 10 minutes 7. Report to the Planning and Environmental Commission of an administrative action approving a request for a minor amendment to SDD No. 6, Vail Village Inn, pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for modifications to the approved building Plans for the Vail Village Inn Phase V (La Bottega), 100 East Meadow Drive/Lot M, Block 5D, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0036) Applicant: Staufer Commercial, LLC and Steve Virion, represented by K.H. Webb Architects Planner: Warren Campbell Warren Campbell gave a presentation regarding staffs approval with conditions of a minor amendment to Special Development District No. 6, Vail Village Inn, to allow for a handicapped accessible restroom expansion for the La Bottega tenant space . There was no public present. The Commissioners agreed to let staffs approval with conditions stand. 10 minutes 8. A request for a final review of a final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Pfat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for the relocation of the common property fine between Lots 4 and 7, located 103 and 107 Rockledge Road/Lots 4 and 7, Block 7, Vail Village Filing 1, • and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0038) Applicant: Gary Rosenbach and Vernon Taylor, represented by K.H. Webb Architects PC Planner: Bill Gibson Page 6 ACTION: Approved MOTION: Cleveland SECOND: Jewitt VOTE: 7-0-0 • The applicant's representative, Kyle Webb of K.H. Webb Architects, was available for questions. There were no public or Commissioner's comments. 9. A request fora recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, and Section 2.8, Adoption and Amendment of the Master Plan, Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, to allow for amendments to Articles 12-7H, Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District, and 12-71, Lionshead Mixed Use 2 District, Vail Town Code, and the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, to require no net loss of parking, no net loss of employee housing units and no net loss of accommodation units in Lionshead Mixed Use 1 and Lionshead Mixed Use 2 Districts, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0028) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: George Ruther /Rachel Friede ACTION: Table to June 26, 2006 MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Jewitt VOTE: 7-0-0 10. A request for a final review of a variance, from Section 12-6D-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for a new single family residence within the front and side setbacks, located at 1740 Sierra Trail/Lot 22, Vail Village West Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0015) Applicant: Lois Solis, represented by Michael Suman Architect Planner: Matt Gennett ACTION: Table to June 26, 2006 • MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Jewitt VOTE:7-0-0 11. A request for a final review of a variance from Section 12-6D-9, Site Coverage, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a residential addition, located at 1100 Hornsilver Circle/Lot 7, Block 1, Vail Village Filing 8, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0033) Applicant: Phillip and Jennifer Maritz, represented by Fritzlen Pierce Architects Planner: Matt Gennett ACTION: WITHDRAWN 12. Approval of May 22, 2006 minutes MOTION: Jewitt SECOND: Gunion VOTE: 7-0-0 13. Information Update • Project Orientation 14. Adjournment MOTION: Jewitt SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE:7-0-0 The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon • 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, request with 24-hour notification. Please call (970) for information. Community Development Department Page 7 MEMORANDUM • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: June 12, 2006 SUBJECT: A request for a Section 12-7H-5, or Outside of a Climbing Wall to Lionshead Filing (PEC06-0037) final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Conditional Uses, Generally (On All Levels of a Building Building), to allow for the relocation of the Lionshead the Lionshead Sundial Plaza, located at Tract C, Vail 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail, on behalf of Charlie Alexander, LMG Inc. Planner: Elisabeth Reed • I. SUMMARY The applicant, the Town of Vail, on behalf of Charlie Alexander, is requesting a conditional use permit pursuant to Section 12-7H-5, Conditional Uses, Generally (On All Levels of a Building or Outside of a Building), to allow for the relocation of the Lionshead Climbing Wall to the Lionshead Sundial Plaza, located at Tract C, Vail Lionshead Filing 1. Based upon Staff's review of the criteria outlined in Section VIII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends approval, with conditions, of this request subject to the findings and conditions noted in Section VIII of this memorandum. tl. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The Town of Vail, on behalf of Charlie Alexander (LMG, Inc.), is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for the relocation of the Lionshead Climbing Wall from the Children's Ski School area (on Tracts B and D near the Lionshead gondola) to Sundial Plaza, located on Town-owned Tract C, between the Landmark and the Lifthouse Lodges. The climbing wall was most recently approved in 1999 by the Planning and Environmental Commission as a "public park and recreation facility", which is a conditional use within the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 (LMU-1) zone district. The wall was approved via a conditional use permit simultaneously with an application requesting a continuation of the miniature golf course, which has received Conditional Use Permits for various locations within Lionshead regularly since 1980 under the direction of various operators. Due to the construction of the Arrabelle, the app4~icant will no longer be able to retain the same location for the wall. Sundial Plaza i~ a location that has been mutually agreed upon between the applicant (the operatof) and the Town's Fire and Public Works Department. ; ~, Within Lionshead, a construction mitigation task force has been formed, which is a group interested in the operation of guest and kid-friendly activities to help offset the negative • impacts of construction within the Lionshead area. Working with the construction mitigation task force, the operator and applicant's representative, Charlie Alexander, applied through the Town's construction mitigation RFP process and was approved by the Vail Town Council fora $27,000 income guarantee from the Town of Vail. This guarantee allows the operator the chance to sell climbs for $2 per person, down from the expected expense of $10 per person. Tokens for climbs will be bought by local retailers and hoteliers and likely used as shopping incentives or similar items. The climbing wall is twenty four feet (24') high, has three sides for climbing and is attached to a trailer, which is proposed to be driven to the site, and remain parked there for the duration of the summer. The wall will be in operation daily from June 24 through September 4, from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. There is no lighting, signage, or amplified sound associated with the request. As in past years, several green screens (low fences) and flower pots will surround the trailer to provide screening. The operation of the sprinkler systems is maintained throughout the summer and the landscaping is thereby maintained. In years past, the applicant has used a "weed-eater" or similar apparatus to maintain the landscaping beneath the trailer. The applicant has agreed to replace any dead or damaged landscaping same for same after the time of the wall removal if necessary. The applicant has yet to visit the Design Review Board for review of the request. A vicinity map is attached for reference (Attachment A). The applicant's letter of request (Attachment B), photos of the wall (Attachment C), and a site plan (Attachment D) are also attached. III. REVIEWING BOARD ROLES Order of Review: Generally, applications will be reviewed first by the PEC for acceptability of use and then by the DRB for compliance of proposed buildings and site planning. • Plannina and Environmental Commission: Action: The PEC is responsible for final approval/denial of CUP. Desian Review Board: Action: The DRB has NO review authority on a CUP, but must review any accompanying DRB application. Town Council: Actions of DRB or PEC maybe appealed to the Town Council or by the Town Council. Town Council evaluates whether or not the PEC or DRB erred with approvals or denials and can uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the board's decision. Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided and plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines. Staff provides a staff memo containing background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS A. Town of Vail Zoning Regulations • 2 Section 12-7H: Lionshead Mixed Use 1 (LMU-1) District (in part) • 12-7H-1: PURPOSE: The Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District is intended to provide sites for a mixture of multiple- family dwellings, lodges, hotels, fractional fee clubs, time shares, lodge dwelling units, restaurants, offices, skier services, and commercial establishments in a clustered, unified development. Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District, in accordance with the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities appropriate fo the permitted Types of buildings and uses and to maintain the desirable qualities of the District by establishing appropriate site development standards. This District is meant to encourage and provide incentives for redevelopment in accordance with the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. This Zone District was specifically developed to provide incentives for properties to redevelop. The ultimate goal of these incentives is to create an economically vibrant lodging, housing, and commercial core area. The incentives in this Zone District include increases in allowable gross residential floor area, building height, and density over the previously established zoning in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan study area. The primary goal of the incentives is to create economic conditions favorable to inducing private redevelopment consistent with the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Additionally, the incentives are created to help finance public off-site improvements adjacent to redevelopment projects. With any development/redevelopment proposal taking advantage of the incentives created herein, the following amenities will be evaluated: streetscape improvements, pedestrian/bicycle access, public plaza redevelopment, public art, roadway improvements, and similar improvements. • 12-7H-5: CONDITIONAL USES; GENERALLY (ON ALL LEVELS OF A BUILDING OR OUTSIDE OF A BUILDING): (in part) The following conditional uses shall be permitted, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of chapter 16 of this title: Private oufdoor recreation facilities, as a primary use. Section 12-16: Conditional Uses Permits (in part) Section 12-16-1: Purpose; Limitations In order to provide the flexibility necessary to achieve the objectives of this title, specified uses are permitted in certain districts subject to the granting of a conditional use permit. Because of their unusual or special characteristics, conditional uses require review so that they may be located properly with respect to the purposes of this title and with respect to their effects on surrounding properties. The review process prescribed in this chapter is intended to assure compatibility and harmonious development between conditional uses and surrounding properties in the Town at large. Uses listed as conditional uses in the various districts may be permitted subject to such conditions and limitations as the Town may prescribe to insure that the location and operation of the conditional uses will be in accordance with the development objectives of the Town and will not be detrimental to other uses or properties. Where conditions cannot be devised, to achieve these objectives, applications for conditional use permits shall be denied. • B. Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan 3 Section 4.12 Youth Recreation Throughout the masterp/an process there was public input regarding the need for both • indoor and outdoor non-skier related recreation opportunities for children and youth. Since the removal of the playground south of Gore Creek in 1995, the only such activities include the Vail Associates putt-putt golf course and the open play field of the ski yard. As the redevelopment of Lionshead progresses the creation of a programmed children's play area should be a community priority. Programmatic components of such as play area could include `lot-lot"play equipment, a volleyball court, swing sets, and creative play structures. Landscaping, benches, and picnic tables should also be integrated into the design such a play area. The location of such a play area will need to be readily accessible from the Lionshead pedestrian mall area and the Gore Creek recreation path, and will require good southern solar exposure. V. VI. VII. In addition to the play area described above, the potential of integrating children's play areas into the Lionshead pedestrian retail mall should be considered when improvements to the mall are made. Good examples of such play areas can be found in the Aspen, Breckenridge, and Boulder pedestrian retail districts. ZONING ANALYSIS Zoning: Lionshead Mixed Use 1 (LMU-1) District Land Use Plan Designation: Resort Accommodations and Services; Tourist Commercial Current Land Use: Mixed Use SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING • Land Use Zonin4 North: Residential Lionshead Mixed Use-1 District South: Mixed Use Lionshead Mixed Use-1 District East: Mixed Use Lionshead Mixed Use-1 District West: Mixed Use Lionshead Mixed Use-1 District CRITERIA AND FINDINGS The review criteria for a request of this nature are established by the Town Code. The proposed climbing wall is located outside of a building within the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 Zone District. Therefore, this proposal is subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 12-16, Vail Town Code. A. Consideration of Factors Repardin4 Conditional Use Permits: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the Town. Staff believes the proposed relocation of the climbing wall is consistent with the purpose of the Lionshead Mixed Use I zone district and the aspects of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan which address recreation. The proposal provides a source of steady activity within the district and will act as an amusement source during the time of excessive nearby construction. • 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. 4 Staff believes the proposed location of the climbing wall will have no negative • effects on the above-mentioned criteria as the area is currently vacant and is also conducive to public entertainment and recreation. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. Staff believes that the proposed relocation of the climbing wall will have no negative effects on the above-mentioned criteria. This location has been agreed upon by various Town Departments and does not impede pedestrian or vehicular traffic. Snow removal is not an issue as the climbing wall will be in operation only until Labor Day. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. The proposed location of the recreational use is compatible with the surrounding uses. At twenty four feet (24') in height, the climbing wall is similar to surrounding retail uses, which project upwards of such height. B. The Plannino and Environmental Commission shall make the followino findinas before arantina a conditional use permit: • 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the Lionshead Mixed Use-1 Zone District. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it will be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission approves, with conditions, the applicant's request for a conditional use permit, pursuant to Sections 12-7H-5, Conditional Uses, Generally (On All Levels of a Building or Outside of a Building), to allow for the relocation of the Lionshead Climbing Wall to the Lionshead Sundial Plaza, located at Tract C, Vail Lionshead Filing 1. Staffs recommendation of approval is based upon the review of the criteria described in Section VII of this memo and the evidence and testimony presented. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the applicant's • request, staff recommends that the following findings be made as part of a motion: 5 1. That the proposed locations of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the district • in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed locations of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the applicant's request, Staff recommends that the following conditions be made a part of the motion: 1. The applicant and operator shall abide with all of the operation specifications outlined within this memorandum. 2. The applicant shall replace in full any landscaping that is damaged or otherwise negatively impacted during the erection, operation, or removal of the climbing wall operation. 3. The approval of this request shall be based upon approval of the associated design review request. IX. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map • B. Applicant's request C. Applicable photos D. Site plan • 6 Attachment: B LMG Inc. • Charlie Alexander P.O.Box 19444 Avon, Co 81620 970-376-3231 May 5, 2006 RE: CUP for Climbing Wall TOV Planning Staff This request is for a Conditional Use Permit allowing for the relocation of the Lionshead climbing wall to the Sundial Plaza for this summer 2006 due to the construction of Arrabelle. The Lionhead climbing wall has been located next to the gondola since 1999 under a CUP for Charlie Alexander. Last summer due to construction in the Lionshead area we were unable to secure our location with VR and opted to do the Vail Market and special events. Due to the high demand from our guests, LH merchants, and the Town we have decided, and been given permission to set up the wall at the Sundial Plaza.. I am asking the staff to approve this CUP for this summer at this new location. There will be no changes in our operations, hours, lighting, ect. We will continue to provide the same guest experience as the past in a consistent location to better serve them and the • merchants. This year merchants will be giving away climbing tokens to help drive business to their locations, while the central LH location will help keep guests in LH a little longer. We have had extensive meetings with the Construction Mitigation Group, CSE, and town officials to secure this site. The use of Sundial Plaza will help meet the desires of the Merchants, while also meeting fire and town related issues. We plan on rebuilding the miniature golf course and moving the climbing wall back to the Ski School location next summer. Daily operations will begin on Saturday June 24`h from 10:00am to 6:OOpm through Labor Day. With money coming from the Town, the Construction Mitigation Group, and the Merchants the cost to climb w'.. ~:-- 1 other procedures will be the same as in the past. We will continue to have green scre ound the trailer and flower pots in front. Leonard Sandoval and I have met~i u~nct'ua5 tunes with Stan and John Gulick and have determined this location to be well suited and meets with their approvals. Since 1991 the miniature golf course and climbing wall have proven to be a valuable asset to our town, the guests, and the merchants. We are only changing locations due to construction yet remaining in the commercial area of Lionshead. I have enclosed the previous PEC and DRB fmdmgs for your review and believe they will help with any other questions you may have. Thank You . Charlie Alexander • • ~~~5 . ~~ May 8, 20006 Russell Forrest Director of Community Development Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Russell: TOWN OF VAIN ` This letter is intended to supplement the application for a conditional use permit submitted earlier today by Charlie Alexander (LMG Inc.) for placement of a temporary climbing wall to be located in Sundial Plaza in the LionsHead Mall. Since the first of the year, Mr. Alexander has been working with the town-sponsored construction mitigation task force to accommodate requests from the business community to provide family-friendly activities in LionsHead to help offset impacts from the construction. He applied through the town's construction mitigation RFP process and was approved for funding by the Vail Town Council fora $27,000 income guarantee to be paid by the Town of Vail to support the climbing wall project. In exchange for the income guarantee, Charlie is discounting the cost per climb from $10 per person to $2 per person. Since approval of the funding application, Charlie has been working tirelessly with the Vail Fire Department and Public Works Department to find an acceptable location. It is my understanding that as of May~1; the ~ ndial Plaza location has been approved by both Chief John Gulick and -Leonard San oval. The plan is to have the outdoor climbing wall in operation from 10/alm. to 4 p.m.'daily, June 24 through Sept. 4. c To finalize these arrangements, Charlie is working with the Finance Department and Town Attorney's office in developing a contract for use of the site and other operational matters. Additionally, he is obtaining the required insurance and a Town of Vail business license. It is my understanding that any application fee required by the conditional use permit will either by waived by the Town Manager or paid in full by the town's construction mitigation budget. If you have any questions about this application and the town's involvement with such, please don't hesitate to contact me at 479-2115. Sincerely, ~N F VAIL S a erthorn C u ity In rmation Office • cc: Stan Zemler 75 South Frontage Road • Vail, Colorado 81657 • 970-479-2100 /FAX 970-479-2157 • www. vailgov. com ~; ~~ ,. ~. r ~~w i .- i .I. iii!( 1 ~ ~ ~` ~`~ v a~~ ~, ;~rx ~ ; ~•° ti ;~ ~.~;: ~~ J1~ 1 rf1 ~ ' i ~1~i ~ • ~ i;a ~- '~~~' ~ y, ~ „,`~',r ~~~q ~ 5 err 'r+ d. m,~~a~`jr~SS ~~ t , ~ J~~G PPb/dJ 'd'~~~' t i f~,i Py ~ R' ~ r ^r a s, ,^~' 1 ~ r ~~-~..~. t°~ ~~ ~, ;~ ..F~~ t, ~"~~ i7 r ~ ~ f ~ R f I.i F 6 'fi 1 ~ ' ~ t ~ i. 'a~~ e~ µ ' ~ , i i ~~ I t N ad ~ 3~r ~ ~'~~ H ~g ,~ank~-0~S ~~! ~ ^v ti I^ ," ~~ 7~ a ~K ~ '~ #A ~:;?~~ J t~'~~' r 4 ~ ~ M Ayy.t',n.,l t~ ~ c a .`1.,... ~; .,.. nl h 1) i ~~ 41 ~~ ~ ~ ~ f~s'~[1~. ~. ~ I JJ~3 rn n ' .."cry ~, f'y, Yy.~, ~'~~~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ., 'rte;-°Y'~ .:.Y' "e"`°, .,.---~..~._ _~_ ~~aa,. _~r! 4 %~'~f'1 iu t i + ~ ~ ~ ~ X k ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~4 ~~4 '~ ~ A~r~ ~ '~~ ~ ~ i 1I 4 ~ ~ ~ nn ; ~ ,3z ' 4',~,l MW SA,F' S ~ Hy X r ~ ~~ u ~ ~~i~ ~ p y . ~ ~ ~~ M a r y ; ~ r~ t ~ ~~ ~' - 1 w 4 br /" ~ 4 1 1 . 5r~~ 4 e 4~r :~J. `i 1. r, t{., ~ay 1~U k„~ .~"^:~~Y,~~4~~am~rw~n~wat ~...wv~r~x` ~C~~ $ ~#~'~ /' ~dtR.YEs~rYa s c ~~; ~ ~ ~^ ; fJ ~ 4.~ ~~ ..S" R.~`,f m~ t ~ Y'; ~~i ~ $ ~. v ,, Y~~'~. ty, f V' `r r,,1't~;.r' l e- i 1 I' ,. i ' ~~ t. ~~~ t' #~ .4:S~S ~ bh J ,;,..j~ j :.:; "St'•yyr~ .. . . . ~ {t,~p-+'~P~ :F: AI 4 i :wJ ~ ~ 3 ':.5 'f' , '~ ~ ~ ~l ~ ~ ~k 1 ..~ 1 ~ ~ tl a . [((/c ' W. °; t , . ' i .2~ Attachment: D ~.~__. _. _1 1. _ _ l - __. _J ~ _1 ._.~- r~ ,.~ L ~------__ ------ ._- J. 1 - 1 ~ ~ ~ ~-- ~ ~! • ~ ~ i _I - _ II ~ ~ i 1 I 1 ~ ..r I '~' ~ 1 C 1;,~--b ;w7 ~ ~ ~ w«r~ • III 1l LML~11A1K TIOi1MlJI ~ ~ ~ ~. i/ ~ ~ . ~~ f ~ ~ -~~ ~ l I . _... l 1__ °' .4 Y/ ~ fir' 'V ~ ~Y... - 1 ~.r a. "~ ~ ~~`L" ~ •/ V/' r _' ~~ 1 I I.FT HOU6'P ~ f coNC~C)A1r1,11rs ~ \ \ ' _ .~ I ~~ \ \ ~ ~~ ' `\ ~ 1 ~~, ~~ _..._.-- r- 1 ~ 1 1 ~ f • l .i MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 12, 2006 SUBJECT: A request for a final review of an amendment to an Approved Development Plan, to allow for an increase in Gross Residential Floor Area for Lot 6; and a request for a final review of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to amend the allowable Gross Residential Floor Area, within the Eleni Zniemer Subdivision located at 1701 F Buffehr Creek Road/Lot 6, Eleni Zniemer Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Pat Ranallo Planner: Warren Campbell I. SUMMARY The applicant, Pat Ranallo, is requesting final review of an amendment to an Approved Development Plan, to allow for an increase in Gross Residential Floor Area for Lot 6; and a request for a final review of the Amended Final Plat. Eleni Zneimer • Subdivision. Lot 6. A Re-subdivision of a Part of Tract A, Lion's Ridge Subdivision. Filing No. 2, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to amend the allowable Gross Residential Floor Area on Lot 6, within the Eleni Zniemer Subdivision located at 1701 F Buffehr Creek Road/Lot 6, Eleni Zniemer Subdivision. If approved, this request would result in the plat being amended to show a 10% increase in GRFA for Lot 6. Staff is recommending approval with a condition of this application subject to the findings and criteria outlined in Section VIII of this memorandum. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant, Pat Ranallo, is requesting final review of an amendment to an Approved Development Plan, to allow for an increase in Gross Residential Floor Area for Lot 6; and a request for a final review of the Amended Final Plat, Eleni Zneimer Subdivision. Lot 6, A Re-subdivision of a Part of Tract A. Lion's Ridge Subdivision, Filing No. 2, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to amend the allowable Gross Residential Floor Area on Lot 6, within the Eleni Zniemer Subdivision located at 1701 F Buffehr Creek Road/Lot 6, Eleni Zniemer Subdivision. The applicant's request is comprised of two applications to accomplish two goals. The applications and accompanying goals include: An application to amend an approved development plan in order to increase the allowable GRFA on Lot 6 of the Eleni Zniemer Subdivision; and • An exemption plat application to amend the plat restrictions on GRFA for the Lot 6. A vicinity map of the area affected by these applications is attached for reference (Attachment A). A reduced copy of the proposed amended plat is attached for reference (Attachment B). III. BACKGROUND The area currently platted under the Eleni Zneimer Subdivision was annexed into the Town Of Vail from Eagle County by Ordinance 9, Series of 1987 which became effective on April 29, 1987. It was previously identified as Phase VI of The Valley Subdivision. The Valley Phase VI was approved as a Planned Unit Development (PUD) under Eagle County jurisdiction in the fall of 1980. That plan included 42 townhouses with a total GRFA of 77,150 square feet. When the plan was annexed into the Town of Vail, a provision of the annexation ordinance required that any major modification to the County approved plan would require PEC approval. In that same ordinance residential Cluster Zoning was applied to the Eleni Zneimer Subdivision. On October 22, 1990, the Planning and Environmental Commission unanimously approved an amendment to the approved PUD from Eagle County. The amended development plan included the ability to construct 13single-family dwelling units with the ability to construct acaretaker/employee housing unit in conjunction with each single- family dwelling unit. A total of 55,500 square feet of GRFA was approved for the 13 single-family dwelling units and an additional 10,400 square feet was approved for the 13 potential caretaker/employee housing units. On August 30, 1990, March 31, 1994, and June 6, 1996, the plats establishing Lots 1 -7 of the Lia Zneimer Subdivision were recorded. The Lia Zneimer Subdivision is located on the south side of Buffehr Creek Road. On February 19, 2003, the plat establishing Lots 1-6 of the Eleni Zneimer Subdivision was recorded. The seven lots created in the Lia Zneimer Subdivision and the six lots created by the Eleni Zneimer Subdivision completed the platting of the 13 single-family lots approved under the October 22, 1990, approved development plan. On October 19, 2005 the Design Review Board reviewed the proposed new building envelope and curb-cut access proposal on a conceptual basis and unanimously agreed that the proposed relocation of access was a better site design solution than taking access on the existing driveway through the retaining walls. They believed the proposed design would have less impact on the site. On November 14, 2006, the Planning and Environmental Commission reviewed an and approved an amendment to an Approved Development Plan for the Eleni Zneimer Subdivision, to allow for modifications to the existing platted building envelope (Lot 1), site access (Lot 1), an increase in Gross Residential Floor Area (Lots 1-6); and a request for a final review of the Amended Final Plat, Eleni Zneimer Subdivision, A Re- subdivision of a Part of Tract A, Lion's Ridae Subdivision, Filina No. 2, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to amend the allowable Gross Residential Floor Area and platted building envelope (Lot 1), within the 2 Eleni Zniemer Subdivision located at 1701A-F Buffehr Creek Road/Lots 1-6, Eleni Zniemer Subdivision. The request would result in the plat being amended to show a 10% increase in GRFA for each lot, the building envelope for Lot 1 being amended, and the access for Lot 1 being taken off of Buffehr Creek Road verse the existing shared - driveway. IV. ROLES OF REVIEWING BOARDS Development Plan • Ordinance 9, Series of 1987, included a provision that the PEC review any major changes to the approved development plan for the Eleni Zneimer Subdivision. The PEC shall approve, approve with modifications, or deny the requested amendment to the approved development plan. Exemption Plat Planning and Environmental Commission: Action: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for final approval, approve with modifications, or disapprove the plat. Specifically the code states in Section 13-12-3C, Review and Action on Plat: The planning and environmental commission shall review the plat and associated materials and shall approve, approve with modifications or disapprove the plat within twenty one (21) days of the first public hearing on the exemption plat application or the exemption plat application will be deemed approved. A longer time period for rendering a decision maybe granted subject to mutual agreement between the planning and environmental commission and the applicant. The criteria for reviewing the plat shall be as contained in section 13-3-4 of this title. Design Review Board: Action: The Design Review Board has NO review authority on an exemption plat, but must review any accompanying Design Review Board application. Town Council: The Town Council is the appeals authority for an exemption plat review procedure in accordance with Section 13-3-5C, Vail Town Code, which reads as follows: Within ten (10) days fhe decision of the Planning and Environmental Commission on the final plat shall be transmitted to the Council by the staff. The Council may appeal the decision of the Planning and Environmental Commission within seventeen (17) days of the Planning and Environmental Commission's action. If Council appeals the Planning and Environmental Commission's decision, the Council shall hear substantially the same presentation by the applicant as was heard at the Planning and Environmental Commission hearing(s). The Council shall have thirty (30) days to affirm, reverse, or affirm with modifications the Planning and Environmental Commission decision, and the Council shall conduct the appeal at a regularly scheduled Council meeting. • Staff: • The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided and plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines. Staff provides a staff memo containing background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS TOWN OF VAIL ZONING CODE TITLE 13: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS (in part) 13-2-2 DEFINITIONS EXEMPTION PLAT: The platting of a portion of land or property that does not fall within the definition of a "subdivision'; as contained in this section. 13-12 EXEMPTION PLAT REVIEW PROCEDURES 13-12-1: PURPOSE AND INTENT: • The purpose of Phis chapter is to establish criteria and an appropriate review process whereby the planning and environmental commission may grant exemptions from the definition of the term "subdivision" for properties that are determined to fall outside the purpose, purview and intent of chapters 3 and 4 of this title. This process is intended to allow for the platting of property where no additional parcels are created and conformance with applicable provisions of this code has been demonstrated. (Ord. 2(2001) § 1) 13-12-2: EXEMPTIONS IN PROCEDURE AND SUBMITTALS: "Exemption Plats", as defined in section 13-2-2 of this title, shall be exempt from requirements related to preliminary plan procedures and submittals. Exemption plat applicants may be required to submit an environmental impact report if required by title 12, chapter 12 of this code. 13-12-3: PLAT PROCEDURE AND CRITERIA FOR REVIEW: The procedure for an exemption plat review shall be as follows: A. Submission Of Proposal; Waiver Of Requirements: The applicant shall submit two (2) copies of the proposal following the requirements for a final plat in subsection 13- 3-68 of this title, with the provision that certain of these requirements may be waived by the administrator and/or the planning and environmental commission if determined not applicable to the project. • • B. Public Hearing: The administrator will schedule a public hearing before the planning and environmental commission and follow notification requirements for adjacent property owners and public notice for the hearing as found in subsection 13-3-661 of this title. C. Review And Action On Plat: The planning and environmental commission shall review the plat and associated materials and shall approve, approve with modifications or disapprove the plat within twenty one (21) days of the first public hearing on the exemption plat application or the exemption plat application will be deemed approved. A longer time period for rendering a decision may be granted subject to mutual agreement between the planning and environmental commission and the applicant. The criteria for reviewing the plat shall be as contained in section 13-3-4 of this title. VI. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Land Use Zonino North: Forest Service NA East: Residential Residential Cluster West: Forest Service NA South: Residential Residential Cluster VII. SITE ANALYSIS GRFA Allowed C. Lot Existing. Lot 1 4,788.5 sq. ft. Lot 2 4,788.5 sq. ft. Lot 3 4,788.5 sq. ft. Lot 4 4,788.5 sq. ft. Lot 5 5,000 sq. ft. Lot 6 3,800 sq. ft. Tract A No development Potential Proposed No Change No Change No Change No Change No Change 4,180 sq. ft. No Change VIII. APPLICATION CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Development Plan Amendment: As stated previously, when the Eagle County approved development plan was annexed into the Town of Vail in 1987, a provision of the annexation ordinance required that any major modification to the County approved plan would require PEC approval. On October 22, 1990, the Planning and Environmental Commission unanimously approved an amendment to the approved PUD from Eagle County. The amended development plan included the ability to construct 13 single-family dwelling units with the ability to construct acaretaker/employee housing unit in conjunction with each single- family dwelling unit. A total of 55,500 square feet of GRFA was approved for the 13 single-family dwelling units and an additional 10,400 square feet was approved for the 13 potential caretaker/employee housing units. • As Planning and Environmental Commission review of this application is required by annexation agreement and not Code, the only evaluation criteria to be used is to compare the existing, approved plan, to the proposed plan and determine that the intent • and goals of the currently approved plan are being maintained. The proposal includes one change to the approved plan. The proposed change is as follows: Chanae to GRFA limitations: In regards to the application approved on November 14, 2005, by the Planning and Environmental Commission staff believed that the proposed amendment to increase the maximum allowable GRFA on the six lots within the Eleni Zneimer Subdivision was reasonable and appropriate as the proposed amendment would maintain the intent of the October 22, 1990, approval for all six lots within the Eleni Zneimer Subdivision. Staff explained how the amendments to the GRFA regulations enacted by Ordinance 14, Series of 2004, affected the method by which GRFA within the Residential Cluster zone district is measured. Because the GRFA for the Eleni Zneimer Subdivision is limited by the plat the lots within the subdivision were negatively affected by Ordinance 14 as the GRFA amendments require wall thickness to be counted as GRFA (within Ordinance 14 a 10% increase in GRFA was included to compensate for the thickness of walls). The approved proposal was to increase the maximum GRFA permitted on each lot by 10% to recapture the GRFA "lost" when wall thickness was changed to count as GRFA. This proposal will not change the intended size, bulk, and mass of structures within the subdivision. Conversely, if this amendment was not approved the effect of Ordinance 14, Series of 2004, was a reduction in size, bulk, and mass of the structures within the subdivision by 10%. Staff believes the current application to increase the GRFA for Lot 6 solely is not • an ideal situation as the support for increase the GRFA within the Eelni Zneimer Subdivision applies to all six lots. Staff believes that the ideal solution is to record the plat approved by the Commission on November 14, 2006. The plat approved by the Commission on November 14, 2005, which increased the GRFA for all six lots within the Subdivision by 10% and changes the building envelope for Lot 1 has not been recorded but is contractually set to be recorded on July 31, 2006. The delay in recording this plat has concerned the applicant due to his construction schedule for completion later this summer, which is why he has submitted the proposal to increase the GRFA on the lot he owns, Lot 6, in the event the plat approved on November 14, 2005, is not recorded in a timely fashion after July 31, 2006. The applicant agrees with staff that recording the plat for all six lots is the best solution and has agreed to accept a condition regarding staff's recommendation of approval to delay the recording of the proposed Amended Final Plat. Eleni Zneimer Subdivision. Lot 6, A Re- subdivision of a Part of Tract A, Lion's Ridge Subdivision, Filing No. 2, to no earlier than August 7, 2006, in the event the plat approved on November 14, 2006, is not recorded. The date of August 7, 2006, allows for several working days for the recording of the plat approved on November 14, 2006, and in the event there is a delay the plat proposed by the applicant could be recorded to allow his project to continue forward. Staff believes this is a reasonable solution to the applicant's concerns. Exemption Plat (Defers to Section 13-3-4, which is as followsl: • The following are the requirements of Section 13-3-4, Commission Review of Application; Criteria and Necessary Findings, Vail Town Code, for the review of an Exemption Plat. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall conduct a public hearing on an application fora Preliminary Plan for Subdivision. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall consider the application, relevant additional materials, Staff report and recommendations as well as any other comments or public information given at the hearing. The Planning and Environmental Commission may discuss advisable changes to the proposed subdivision with the applicant. The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of Phis Chapter, the Zoning Ordinance and other pertinent regulations that the Planning and Environmental Commission deems applicable. Due consideration shall be given to the recommendations made by public agencies, utility companies and other agencies consulted under subsection 73-3-3C above. A. Before recommending approval, approval with conditions or disapproval of the Preliminary Plan, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall consider the following criteria with respect to the proposed subdivision: (1) The extent to which the proposed subdivision is consistent with all the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town; and • Staff has reviewed the individual documents comprising the Vail Comprehensive Plan and found the Vail Land Use Plan to be the sole document addressing this parcel/subdivision. The Vail Land Use Ian identifies Lot 6 and the Eleni Zneimer Subdivision as being within the Open Space Land Use Designation which states the following: Passive recreation areas such as greenbelts, stream corridors and drainage ways are the types of areas in this category. Hillsides which were classified as undevelopable due to high hazards and slopes over 40% are also included within this area. These hillside areas would still be allowed types of development permitted by existing zoning, such as one unit per 35 acres, for areas in agricultural zoning. Also, permitted in this area would be institutional/public uses. Staff believes the proposed plat is in conformance with the Open Space Land Use Designation and therefore complies with this criterion. (2) The extent to which the proposed subdivision complies with all of the standards of this Title, as well as, but not limited to, Title 72, Zoning Regulations and other pertinent regulations that the Planning and Environmental Commission deems applicable; and The proposed exemption plat complies with all the standards of Title 13 in • regards to format. Staff further believes that the proposed exemption plat does complies with all the standards found in Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code. The following are portions of Section Chapter 12-1-2, • Purpose, Vail Town Code, which staff believes apply to this application: A. General: These regulations are enacted for the purpose of of promoting the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town, and to promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that will conserve and enhance its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of high quality. B. Specifically: These regulations are intended to achieve the following more specific purposes: 6. To encourage a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with Municipal development objectives. 11. To otherwise provide for the growth of an orderly and viable community. Staff believes that the proposed exemption plat complies with this criterion. However, staff believes that the condition that is being requested to be attached to any possible approval, refer to Page 6 for staff's response to the criterion for approving an amendment to the Approved Development Plan, will allow fora reasonable time period for the plat approved by the • Commission to be recorded. (3) The extent to which the proposed subdivision presents a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses consisfent with municipal development objectives; and As described in Criterion 2 above staff does believes that the proposed exemption plat to increase the maximum allowable GRAF on a single lot will result in a "harmonious, convenient, and workable relationship" among adjacent land uses. (4) The extent of the effects on the future development of the surrounding area; and Staff believes that the proposed exemption plat will not have any negative effect on the development of the surrounding are, and therefore complies with this criterion. (5) The extent to which the proposed subdivision is located and designed to avoid creating spatial pafterns thaf cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development; and The proposed exemption plat will have no negative impact on the items identified in the above criterion as the lot is currently platted and services • and facilities are in place. - (6) The extent to which the utility lines are sized to serve the planned ultimate population of the service area to avoid future land disruption to upgrade under-sized lines; and The proposed exemption plat will have no negative impact on the utility lines servicing Lot 6 as the lot is currently platted and adequate utility lines services are in place. (7) The extent to which the proposed subdivision provides for the growth of an orderly viable community and serves the best interests of the community as a whole; and The proposed exemption plat does not create a lot which does not already currently exist. The creation of Lot 6 and the Eleni Zneimer Subdivision was discussed previously by the Commission and was determined to be an orderly expansion of the number of lots within the community. Staff believes the application complies with this criterion. (8) The extent to which the proposed subdivision results in adverse or beneficial impacts on the natural environment, including, but not limited to, water quality, air quality, noise, vegetation, riparian corridors, hillsides and other desirable natural features; and • The proposed exemption plat, if approved, would not have any negative effect on the items listed in the above criterion as the lot is currently platted. (9) Such other factors and criteria as the Commission and/orCouncil deem applicable to the proposed subdivision. B. Necessary Findings: Before recommending and/or granting an approval of an application for a major subdivision, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings with respect to the proposed exemption plat: (1) That the subdivision is in compliance with the criteria listed in Subsection 13-3-4A of this Title. (2) That the subdivision is consistent with the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and compatible with the development objectives of the Town; and (3) That the subdivision is compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses appropriate for the surrounding areas; and (4) That the subdivision promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in an manner that conserves and enhances ifs natural environment and its • established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. • IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval with conditions, of the request for a final review of an amendment to an Approved Development Plan, to allow for an increase in Gross Residential Floor Area for Lot 6; and a request for a final review of the Amended Final Plat. Eleni Zneimer Subdivision. Lot 6. A Re- subdivision of a Part of Tract A, Lion's Ridge Subdivision. Filing No. 2,, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to amend the allowable Gross Residential Floor Area, within the Eleni Zniemer Subdivision located at 1701 F Buffehr Creek Road/Lot 6, Eleni Zniemer Subdivisionand setting forth details in regard thereto. This recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria in Section VIII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented. Amendment to the Aooroved Develooment Plan Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this amendment to the approved development plan, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: The Planning and Environmental Commission approves the amendment to the approved development plan, to allow for an increase to the maximum permit Gross Residential Floor Area for Lot 6 of the Eleni Zniemer Subdivision, located at 1701 F Buffehr Creek Road/Lot 6, Eleni Zneimer Subdivision and setting forth defai/s in regard thereto. Should the Plannin and Environmental Commission choose to a • 9 pprove this amendment to the approved development plan, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following finding: That the proposed amendment to the approved development plan for the Eleni Zneimer Subdivision is in keeping with the intent and goals of the development plan approved on October 22, 1990, and complies with all Town of Vail technical requirements. Should the Planning and~Environmental Commission choose to deny this amendment to the approved development plan, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: The Planning and Environmental Commission denies the amendment to the approved development plan, to allow for an increase to the maximum permit Gross Residential Floor Area for Lot 6 of the Eleni Zniemer Subdivision, located at 1701 F Buffehr Creek Road/Lot 6, Eleni Zneimer Subdivision and setting forth details in regard thereto. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to deny this amendment to the approved development plan, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following finding: 2. That the proposed amendment to the approved development plan for the Eleni Zneimer Subdivision is not in keeping with the intent and goals of the • 10 development plan approved on October 22, 1990, and complies with all Town of Vail technical requirements. • Amended Final Plat Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve with a condition this exemption plat, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission- pass the following motion with the suggested condition: The Planning and Environmental Commission approves the Amended Final Plat. Eleni Zneimer Subdivision, Lot 6, A Re-subdivision of a Part of Tract A, Lion's Ridge Subdivision. Filing No. 2, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to amend the allowable Gross Residential Floor Area for Lot 6 of the Eleni Zniemer Subdivision located at 1701 F Buffehr Creek Road/Lot 6, Eleni Zniemer Subdivision and setting forth details in regard thereto. The applicant shall not record the Amended Final Plat, E/eni Zneimer Subdivision. Lot 6. A Re-subdivision of a Part of Tract A. Lion's Ridge Subdivision. Filing No. 2, prior to August 7, 2006, and only in the event that the Amended Final Plat. Eleni Zneimer Subdivision. A Re-subdivision of a Part of Tract A. Lion's Ridge Subdivision. Filing No. 2, approved by the Commission on November 14, 2005, is not recorded prior to August 7, 2006. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve with a condition this exemption plat amendment request, the Community Development • Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings: (1) That the subdivision is in compliance with the criteria listed in Subsection 13-3-4A of this Title. (2) That the subdivision is consistent with the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and compatible with the development objectives of the Town; and (3) That the subdivision is compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses appropriate for the surrounding areas; and (4) That the subdivision promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in an manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to deny this exemption plat, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: The Planning and Environmental Commission denies the Amended Final Plat, Eleni Zneimer Subdivision. Lot 6. A Re-subdivision of a Parf of Tract A, Lion's Ridge Subdivision, Filing No. 2, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to amend the allowable Gross Residential Floor Area for Lot 6 of the Eleni Zniemer Subdivision located at 1701 F Buffehr Creek Road/Lot 6, Eleni • Zniemer Subdivision and setting forth details in regard thereto. 11 Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to deny this exemption plat • amendment request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings: (1) That the subdivision is not in compliance with the criteria listed in Subsection 13-3-4A of this Title. (1) That the subdivision is not consistent with the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and compatible with the development objectives of the Town; and (2) That the subdivision is not compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses appropriate for the surrounding areas; and (3) That the subdivision does not promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in an manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. X. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Reduced Copy of Amended Final Plat U :] 12 e N Z Z ''_J 1.1~ O V z mo O ~ ,~ ~_ w~ ~W ~> ~~ ~ ~] ~ t1~ Q~ OJ z~~=,Q o~~~~ o~~vo z ~~ ~W ~z ~N O~ U z ~ -_~ W ¢ Q J ~ w ~ ,~ O O Z Z O ~_ ~y~ W W Q a ~I w a R U `O E 5 0 U a Si E ~~ w 3 ~ a w a ~ OF Uc o 30 ~ ~ ~ s ~ ~ s~ ~~m~a~ S~~' ~ 0 s $~ ~ ~~ N~~~ ~~ ~ E 4 ~ ~ ~~~~~ -~_ " ~g~ QBea °a d~ ~ cm ~a~rn_ m0 m~~~cg $'~ aSnSgg a ~€ t .~ ~~~ ~~ m ~~ ~¢ ~S €'eoQ$o a '°~ sg-a eon € ~ Qz g~o~~~~~ .o u~ ~ ~ q ri~~~ a w o ~ '~ ~~ ~ $ '~' ,R ~ m~ W _ C_~~ ^J H W ~gp~4y~~y~E~~ ~ w 'to ~ 3a a~ $ aEg ~ ~ S'm w ppESE~ 5 ~y •I ~i33~ a m1$~~; S?~m g~~ A ~ 5=~ _ a~ ~ ° ~o~m '~ ~$'$ m C T ~vE'~ r;~ ypa; uu S a ag."s_.~ C y$ 9 q ~ ? 9 ~ .ni E a ~ ~ :~~~~t ~m~'3c E '°gm ~'E ~ n E n y m m 3 c ~ c $ S~u1pi~~ ~~'E~ ~ ~~~~~ f m m r mn~~~a ~ ~ $a~s x 3 0 a$ ~~ N a 3 0 ~g 6 c sc', 'I m~ ad g tl) w G: x ~F~ N V N& ~m a ~~~ o° S ~ ~~ C '~ n s S gig 'a Q U V3O $I 0 8 a~ m ~ o~ ~a N 8~ o~ ~ s~ mo 0 d ~-~ g m c g a O ~ ~ O Z ~ o E w < ~ m ~ S N v ~ ~ 3 i w w O ~ ~ O N O b'~O~ NO N 00 I n ~~o nnn n° n n n ~ n vwi vNi~ ~<a~on ~ ~oa~~m>C/ o I J N 0 J ~~ s ~~ ~~ W 1 OI Sn ~n~ da. ,omm °O ~ m 'nm Aw~~ni ~ < n(Zgzi o A I K O~F-~m ~~ T I I d ifl M I O J ~~1 11 W O :n ^~ O NSn Mh~C'~ nm ~~ e a~~-ni ~~nb~on zoa~L=im ?: n ~ O vi ~ owi :• a go^ a °'~ m -a nn~~nvt°i ~~n~~n o vzd c~ rcoa~--gym too B ~a ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ g~g I S Q ~g~ Y ~ ~ ~ g ~Y ~~~ ~ n ~ g~~ o ~~~ ~ ¢~ v ~+ ~ < ~~ oLL ~~~ mE O ~ ¢ ~ ~ '~s~~ Js~ ~W~ ~~r 8 a m3 -~ ~ o ~¢w s~~ d o ~ d ~ LLOy ; ;6¢ ~ ~ €g~~ ~ ~ so ~ ~ ~ 0 0~~~ Ggm ~ w~ ~~ w ~ ~ ~ ~oo~ ~ oLL~ ~ o=¢ -~~~ qq ~d s~ _ m ~ ~ a `w d 8 ~~~u g~ ~'~ F U ~` m o ~~3u1 O Nx ntg <$ ~ ~~ z w ~ ~~ ~ I S ~~ € y ~~ ~~ e„ ~ B ~} m- n £~ ¢ ~ r d d O ~¢ ~~ a $a c~ ~~ ~~~ " ~ 0~1 ~ a~ a 3d ~ c ._ ~ ~~"m .. n LL ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ J LL p W 2 spp E m . ~ U (7 ~ $ E ~ S ~ p~ mE ~ 'u"f C O N U tl ~ $ ~ ~ ~ . 55 Eg 3~ d m O 6 1 ~~ '~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ n N ' n' 3 T b e0N W ~ n O N 0 ~ I n ~n ~.N-T I ~ nan--~ ~ n air-nvei '~ K O ~ ~~m TFm 1 ~~ ~ °d i 1 ---~.GS'll ~ ®~ J I ~~you g g icl + $N ~ ~~ \ ''~~ LL ~YC ~ j o mN \ ry `~`\ V ~ 2~ ~ U~ 0 JI a ; ~ \ O_ < m V „ ~1' Cs N ~I \ 1~ ~ U 1' OV V ~ ~ ~;'~'~ '~~J ' u1 ~. l29 ~ \ o ~ f/~S,, ~ ~O• ~ ~ uy f L9 L7 g 'y tea, ~~ \\ \ 'fir << ~ ` ,,11,,__ \\ °d ~ "7i ~ w ~ ~ 1 1 1 1 L1n LS n~ ' \\ "v7 ~~ 'J ~~ ~ Z ~ t0 ~ \\ ~'~'uy V\ 1• 1 1~ L2: \ \ \w <<i \ ~~N ~~v N#J Sm~ u ~~~ L3 f. < ~ •r `~ O o e \ L27 \ k~ _ ~~w`IY~4NG51 q;2fi ~ BED le"ya J V ~ ~~ R x o N 6 a g a s b ~j 0 d ~ 4 W c d s V Q S 8 ~ J ~~ 7 ~nUa rv •c ,~ ~ ° ~ ~ ti~r ~~ • • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 12, 2006 SUBJECT: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for amendments to Section 12-7H-5, Conditional Uses; Generally {On all Levels of a Building or Outside of a Building), to allow for seasonal use or structures as a conditional use in Lionshead Mixed Use I District; Section 12-7H-18, Mitigation of Development Impacts, to clarify the inclusion of employee housing as a mitigation of development impacts; Section 12-8A-3, Conditional Uses, to allow for ski runs as a conditional use of the Agricultural and Open Space District; Section 12-8C-3, Conditional Uses, to allow for ski lifts not including loading and unloading areas as a conditional use of the Natural Area Preservation District; Subsection 12-18-5B, Density Control, to clarify limitations on structures which do not conform to density controls; Chapter 14-3, Residential Access, Driveway and Parking Standards, to clarify standards for access, driveway and parking for commercial properties; and Chapter 14-6, Grading Standards, to clarify requirements for retaining walls, Vail Town Code, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0026) . Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Rachel Friede I. SUMMARY The applicant, Town of Vail, is requesting that the Planning and Environmental Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council regarding the proposed text amendments to Section 12-7H-5, Conditional Uses; Generally (On all Levels of a Building or Outside of a Building), to allow for seasonal uses or structures as a conditional use in Lionshead Mixed Use I District; Section 12-7H-18, Mitigation of Development Impacts, to clarify the inclusion of employee housing as a mitigation of development impacts; Section 12-8A-3, Conditional Uses, to allow for ski runs as a conditional use of the Agricultural and Open Space District; Section 12-8C-3, Conditional Uses, to allow for ski lifts not including loading and unloading areas as a conditional use of the Natural Area Preservation District; Subsection 12-18-5B, Density Control, to clarify limitations on structures which do not conform to density controls; Chapter 14-3, Residential Access, Driveway and Parking Standards, to clarify standards for access, driveway and parking for commercial properties; and Chapter 14-6, Grading Standards, to clarify requirements for retaining walls. Based upon Staff's review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission forward a recommendation • of approval to the Vail Town Council for the proposed text amendments, subject to the findings noted in Section VII of this memorandum. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST • Throughout the development and design review process, the Planning Staff has noted inconsistencies with specific code sections, many of which have occurred through zoning code amendments, changes in procedures, or errors in codification. Therefore, Staff periodically returns to the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) and the Town Council to "clean-up" the Sign, Zoning, and Subdivision Regulations, and Development Standards Handbook. Compared to the comprehensive code clean up that occurred last fall, these changes to the code are minor. Staff requests that the PEC review these amendments and forward a recommendation of approval to the Town Council. IV. BACKGROUND On October 24, 2005, the Planning and Environmental Commission forwarded a recommendation of approval with conditions to Town Council regarding a major Code clean-up initiative. Council approved Ordinance 29, Series of 2005, a document with nearly 200 pages of code changes to the Vail Town Code. Staff realizes the importance of Code clean-up and will continue to bring amendments to the Town Code before PEC and Town Council as necessary. On April 24, 2006, the Planning and Environmental Commission tabled this item due to an administrative error. On May 8, 2006, the Planning and Environmental Commission reviewed the proposed text amendments. Comments made by the PEC at this meeting are addressed in Section VI of this memo. ROLES OF REVIEWING BODIES Order of Review: Generally, text amendment applications will be reviewed by the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Commission will forward a recommendation to the Town Council. The Town Council will then review the text amendment application. Planning and Environmental Commission: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for the review of a text amendment application, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, and forwarding of a recommendation to the Vail Town Council. Design Review Board: The Design Review Board has no review authority over a text amendment to the Vail Town Code. Town Council: The Vail Town Council is responsible for final approval, approval with modifications, or denial of a text amendment application, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code. The Vail Town Council has the authority to hear and decide appeals from any decision, determination, or interpretation by the Planning and Environmental Commission and/or Design Review Board. The Vail Town Council may also call up a decision of the Planning and Environmental Commission and/or Design Review Board. • Staff: The Town Staff facilitates the application review process and in this case is the applicant. Staff reviews the submitted application materials for completeness and general compliance with the appropriate requirements of the Town Code. Staff also provides the Planning and Environmental Commission with a memorandum containing a description and background of the application; an evaluation of the application concerning the criteria and findings outlined by the Vail Town Code; and a recommendation of approval, approval with modifications, or denial. V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Town of Vail Zonina Reaulations (Title 12, Vail Town Code) Chapter 12-1: Title, Purpose and Applicability 12-1-2: Purpose A. General: These regulations are enacted for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town, and to promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that will conserve and enhance its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of high quality. Chapter 12-3: Administration and Enforcement 12-3-7: Amendment C. Criteria And Findings: 2. Prescribed Regulations Amendment: a. Factors, Enumerated: Before acting on an application for an amendment to the regulations prescribed in this Title, the planning and environmental commission and town council shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested text amendment: (1) The extent to which the text amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the zoning regulations; and (2) The extent to which the text amendment would better implement and better achieve the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town; and (3) The extent to which the Text amendment demonstrates how conditions have substantially changed since the adoption of the subject regulation and how the existing regulation is no longer appropriate or is inapplicable; and (4) The extent to which the text amendment provides a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal development objectives; and (5) Such other factors and criteria the commission and/or council deem applicable to the proposed text amendment. • Town of Vail Development Standards Handbook (Title 14, Vail Town Code) • Chapter 14-1: Administration 14-1-1: Purpose and Intent: It is the purpose of these rules, regulations, and standards to ensure the general health, safety, and welfare of the community. These rules, regulations, and standards are intended to ensure safe and efficient development within the town for pedestrians, vehicular traffic, emergency response traffic, and the community at large. The development standards will help protect property values, ensure the aesthetic quality of the community and ensure adequate development of property within the Town. VI. PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS Title 12: Development Standards Handbook Issue: "Seasonal Use or structure" is defined in Section 12-2-2 as "a temporary covering erected to accommodate or extend educational, recreational, and cultural activities. Such temporary coverings may not be in place for more than seven (7) consecutive months of any twelve (12) month period. For the purposes of this Title, a seasonal use or structure shall not constitute site coverage and shall not be subject to building bulk control standards. Any seasonal use or structure is subject to design review." Many properties in Lionshead have requested tents in the summer, mainly for special events such as weddings. The Town has allowed a provision for obtaining a conditional use permit for such tents in the past, citing that this use is determined to be similar to conditional uses described in the Section below, 12-7H-5. Staff feels that allowing "Seasonal Use or Structure" as a conditional use will ensure that the definition of such is honored and the proper requirements are attached to the conditional use permit. The PEC voiced concern at the May 8, 2006 meeting that "seasonal use or structure" does not provide enough regulations for this conditional use. Staff feels that rather than codifying additional regulations, the Planning and Environmental Commission should create conditions of approval and include them in any motion to approve conditional use permits. This will allow the Planning and Environmental Commission to create requirements specific to this and other conditional uses. Chapter T. Commercial and Business Districts Article 7H: Lionshead Mixed Use 1 (LMU-1) District • Section 12-7H-5: Conditional Uses; Generally (On All Levels Of A Building Or Outside Of A Building): The following conditional uses shall be permitted, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of chapter 16 of this title: Bed and breakfast as further regulated by Section 12-14-18 of this Title. Brew pubs. Coin operated laundries. Commercial storage. Private outdoor recreation facilities, as a primary use. . Public buildings, grounds, and facilities. Public or private parking lots. Public park and recreation facilities. Public utility and public service uses. . Seasonal use or structure. Single-family residential dwellings. Ski lifts and tows. Television stations. Two-family residential dwellings. Additional uses determined to be similar to conditional uses described in this Section, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-3-4 of this Title. Issue: Staff requires that mitigation of development impacts include employee housing. Therefore, Staff feels that Section 12-7H-18 should include "inclusion of employee housing" in the list of potential mitigation of development impacts. This change should occur to clarify the required inclusion of employee housing in any development application within the district. At the May 8, 2006 meetirig, PEC commissioners suggested changing the text amendment from "inclusion of employee housing" to "inclusion of employee housing plan" so that off-site housing plans and other plans that are in compliance with current housing policy can be utilized. Section 12-7H-18: Mitigation of Development Impacts: Property owners/developers shall also be responsible for mitigating direct impacts of their development on public infrastructure and in all cases, mitigation shall bear a reasonable relation to the development impacts. Impacts maybe determined based on reports prepared by qualified consultants. The extent of mitigation and public amenity improvements shall be balanced with the goals of redevelopment and will be determined by the Planning and Environmental Commission in review of development projects and conditional use permits. Mitigation of impacts may include, but is not limited to, the following: inclusion of employee housing plan, roadway improvements, pedestrian walkway improvements, streetscape improvements, stream tract/bank improvements, public art improvements, and similar improvements. The intent of Phis section is to only require mitigation for large-scale redevelopment/development projects which produce substantial off site impacts. Issue: The Agricultural and Open Space (A) District includes the skier bridge in Lionshead, which, as part of a ski run, is legally nonconforming in this district. The A District already lists "ski lifts and tows" as a conditional use. Adding "runs" as a conditional use will allow the Town to properly regulate runs as a conditional use in the A District. At the May 8, 2006 meeting, some PEC commissioners expressed concern over adding runs as a conditional use in the Agricultural and Open Space (O) District. In response to the PEC's concern, Staff has included a map (Attachment A) that depicts which land adjacent to Vail Mountain are zoned Agricultural and Open Space District. Chapter 8: Open Space and Recreation Districts Article 8A: Agricultural and Open Space (O) District Section 12-8A-3: Conditional Uses: The following conditional uses shall be permitted, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title: Any use within public parks, recreation areas, and open spaces which involves assembly • of more than two hundred (200) persons together in one building or group of buildings, or in one recreation area or other public recreational facility. Cemeteries. • Churches, rectories, and related structures. Low power subscription radio facilities. Private golf, tennis, swimming and riding clubs, and hunting and fishing lodges. Public and private schools and colleges. Semipublic and institutional uses, such as convents and religious retreats. Ski lifts, a~tows and runs. Type ll employee housing units (EHU) as provided in Chapter 13 of this Title. Well water treatment facility. Issue: The Natural Area Preservation District (NAP) has a ski lift running through one portion of this zone district in the Cascade Village area. The base of the lift is in SDD #4 but the lift line and towers are legally nonconforming structures in this district. There is also the potential for the new West Lionshead gondola to be located at the old gas station. This lift would cross over the NAP District to access the mountain. In order to make this land use legally conforming, Staff proposes that "Ski lifts, not including lift access points, tows and runs" be included as a conditional use in NAP. Staff feels that because NAP District land borders Vail Mountain, this will allow the Mountain to legally allow skiing in these areas to access lift loading areas. One serious concern about having legally nonconforming lift towers in the Town of Vail is that without lift towers as a conditional use, Vail Resorts will not have the ability to replace the towers as necessary. At the May 8, 2006 PEC meeting, some Commissioners voiced concerns that it may not be appropriate to have "Ski lifts, tows and runs, not including lift loading and unloading areas" as a conditional use in the NAP District, the most restrictive zone district in the Town. To provide additional information, Staff has included a map (Attachment A) that depicts areas adjacent to Vail Mountain that are zoned NAP District. Article 8C: Natural Area Preservation (NAP) District Section 12-SC-3: Conditional Uses: The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the NAP District, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title: Equestrian trails, used only to access National forest system lands. Interpretive nature walks. Parking, when used in conjunction with a permitted or conditional use. Paved and unpaved, nonmotorized, bicycle paths and pedestrian walkways. Picnic tables and informal seating areas. Ski lifts, not including lift loading and unloading areas, tows and runs. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses and necessary for the operation thereof, with the exception of buildings. • • • Issue: Regulations regarding improvements to structures which do not conform to density controls have been misinterpreted. The term "density controls" includes GRFA requirements as well as requirements regarding the number of dwelling units per acre. Staff has interpreted density controls to include both of these requirements, while certain applicants have construed density controls to only include GRFA. Staff wishes to clarify this portion of the Code in order to eliminate misunderstanding. In situations where applicants do not conform to allowed dwelling units per acre (for example, a 40 unit building built in Eagle County that has since been annexed into the Town of Vail, and is currently only allowed 38 units per the Zoning Regulations), the regulations only allow enlargement if the GRFA does not exceed that of the preexisting nonconforming structure. Since the applicant would have used up all of their allowed GRFA, they would then be eligible for an addition of GRFA under the 250 Ordinance, provided that the property is not in single-family residential (SFR), two-family residential (R), and two-family primary/secondary residential (PS) districts, which are not eligible for the 250 Ordinance. Chapter 12-18: Nonconforming Sites, Uses, Structures And Site Improvements: Section 12-18-5: Structures and Site Improvement: Structures and site improvements lawfully established prior to the effective date hereof which do not conform to the development standards prescribed by this Title for the district in which they are situated maybe continued. Such structures or site improvements maybe enlarged only in accordance with the following limitations: 8. Density Control: Structures which do not conform fo density controls (includes GRFA and dwelling units/acre) maybe enlarged, only if the total gross residential floor area of the enlarged structure does not exceed the total gross residential floor area of fhe preexisting nonconforming structure. ISSUE: An omission in the Development Standards Handbook has led to a lack of regulation for commercial properties regarding access, driveway and parking standards. The Public Works and Fire Departments have used the Multiple Family column in the table below as a means of regulation. However, codifying the commercial requirements will allow Public Works and Fire to enforce regulations related to access, driveway and parking for commercial areas. , Title 14: Develoament Standards Handbook Standard Chapter 3. Residential and Commercial Access, Driveway and Parking Standards Table 1 Driveway/Feeder Road Sta Single-family, Two- family, Primary/Secondary -access to not more than 3 dwelling units (including EHUs) -structures and all portions thereof within 150' from edge of street ~dards Multiple Family -access to 4 to 11 dwelling units -feeder road only Multiple Family and Commercial -access to more than 11 dwelling units and/or commercial properties -feeder road only pavement Driveway/Feeder Road Min. Width Normal (Detail 1) Min. Width 90°corner (cross-over) (Detail 2) Min. Width Entrance/Curb-cut (Detail 1) Max. Width Entrance/Curb-cut (Detail 3) Min. Grade Centerline (Detail 4) Max. Grade Centerline (Detail 4) Max. Grade Centerline Comer/Cross-over (Detail 2) Max. cross-slope grade (Detail 1) Entry angle min. deflection for first 30' of driveway length (Detail 5) Max. centerline break-over grade (Detail 6) Max. grade at edge of public road asphalt (Detail 4) Max. length of max. grade at edge of public road asphalt (Detail 4) Min. centerline turning radius (Detail 7) 12' 15' 16' (flare to 16' ) 24' head in 48' back out 0.5% 10% unheated 12% heated 16% heated and engineered with flat recovery areas 8% unheated 12% heated 8% 45° 14% 8% 10' 20' 20' -Access from feeder road to units shall comply with single-family requirements contained herein 24' 24' (flare to 24' with 10' curb-return radius) 36' 0.5% 9% unheated 12% heated 8% unheated 12% heated 8% 70° 6% 6% 15' 30' 22' -Access from feeder to units shall comply with single-family requirements contained herein 24' 28' (flare to 28' with 15' curb-return radius) 36' 0.5% 9% unheated 12% heated 8% unheated 10% heated 8% 70° I4% 4% 30' 40' ISSUE: Staff is recommending changes to the Retaining Wall section of Title 14 in order to better define requirements for Retaining Wall design and review. The proposed changes further clarify current design review practices and also better define when a retaining wall is required to be designed by a professional engineer(as regulated by the Town of Vail adopted Building Code). Specific requirements for engineered submittals have been added in order to clarify expectations to the applicant. Chapter 14-6: Grading Standards Retaining Walls (General) All retaining walls are reviewed by the Design Review Board or the Administrator to determine compatibility to the existing topography and the materials in use. Retaining walls shall not exceed an exposed face height of six (6) feet. Within a front setback, retaining walls shall not exceed an exposed face height of three (3) feet, unless related to access to a structure constructed on excessive slopes (in excess of thirty (30) percent). Retaining walls associated with a street located within a public right-of--way or access fo an underground covered parking structure are exempt from these height limits, but must be approved by the Design Review Board. C • Retaining walls shall be located a minimum of two (2) feet from adjacent private property boundaries and should be ten (10) feet from the edge of a public street unless otherwise approved by fhe Town Engineer. All retaining walls over four (4) feet in height, measured from the bottom of a footing to the top of wall as per the adopted Town of Vail Building Code, shall be engineered and stamped by a licensed Colorado Professional Engineer (P. E. stamp) regc+irs a ~. Stamp except in the righf-of--way, where retaining walls over three (3) feet in height, measured in the same manner, shall require a P.E. Stamp. All retaining walls requiring a P.E. stamp shall be required to submit and have approved, prior to Building Permit release, engineered stamped plans, profiles, sections, details, and engineering analyses and calculations for each wall type as required by the Town Engineer. At a minimum, unless otherwise direcfed, the engineering submittal shall include P.E. stamped plans, and P.E. stamped typical details wifh all engineering design parameters and calculated Factor of Safety provided on the details. Plans and details shall be cross referenced. VII. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Staff believes that these text amendments are in accordance with the purpose and intent of Titles 12 and 14, as they are all in line with the public interest and serve to improve the Code. The review criteria and factors for consideration for a request of a text amendment to Title 12 are established in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 12- • 3, Vail Town Code. As there are no formal criteria for text amendments to Title 14, the provisions from Title 12 will be used for all proposed text amendment to provide for stringent criteria. A. Consideration of Factors Reaardina the Text Amendment: The extent to which the text amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the Sign, Zoning and Subdivision Regulations as well as the Development Standards Handbook; and Staff believes that the proposed text amendments further the general and specific purposes of Titles 12 and 14. The text amendments create a more comprehensive, clear, and concise Code that will promote the general welfare of the community. 2. The extent to which the text amendment would better implement and better achieve the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town; and Staff believes that the proposed text amendments better implement and better achieve the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and are compatible with the development objectives of the Town. • 3. The extent to which the text amendment demonstrates how conditions have substantially changed since the adoption of the subject regulation and how the existing regulation is no longer appropriate or is inapplicable; • and Staff believes that the proposed text amendments align the specific language of the Regulations with the accepted interpretation and implementation of the regulations. 4. The extent to which the text amendment provides a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal development objectives. Staff believes that the proposed text amendments will facilitate and provide a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations that are consistent with the Town of Vail master plans and development objectives. 5. Such other factors and criteria the Commission and/or Council deem applicable to the proposed text amendment. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before forwarding a recommendation of approval for a text amendment: 1. That the amendments are consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town; and 2. That the amendments further the general and specific purposes of the • Zoning Regulations and the Development Review Handbook; and 3. That the amendments promote the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town and promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the Town Council for proposed text amendments to Section 12-7H-5, Conditional Uses; Generally (On all Levels of a Building or Outside of a Building), to allow for seasonal use or structures as a conditional use in Lionshead Mixed Use I District; Section 12-7H-18, Mitigation of Development Impacts, to clarify the inclusion of employee housing as a mitigation of development impacts; Section 12-8A-3, Conditional Uses, to allow for ski runs as a conditional use of the Agricultural and Open Space District; Section 12-8C-3, Conditional Uses, to allow for ski lifts not including loading and unloading areas as a conditional use of the Natural Area Preservation District; Subsection 12-18-56, Density Control, to clarify limitations on structures which do not conform to density controls; Chapter 14-3, Residential Access, Driveway and Parking Standards, to clarify standards for access, driveway and parking for commercial properties; and Chapter 14-6, Grading • Standards, to clarify requirements for retaining walls; Vail Town Code. io Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve • these proposed text amendments, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval to the Town Council for the Town of Vail's request for proposed text amendments to Section 12-7H-5, Conditional Uses; Generally (On all Levels of a Building.or Outside of a Building), to allow for seasonal uses or structures as a conditional use in Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District; Section 12-7H-18, Mitigation of Development Impacts, to clarify the inclusion of employee housing as a mitigation of development impacts; Section 12-8A-3, Conditional Uses, to allow for ski runs as a conditional use of the Agricultural and Open Space District; Section 12-8C-3, Conditional Uses, to allow for ski lifts not including loading and unloading areas as a conditional use of the Natural Area Preservation District; Subsection 12-18-5B, Density Control, to clarify limitations on structures which do not conform fo densify controls; Chapter 14-3, Residential Access, Driveway and Parking Standards, to clarify standards for access, driveway and parking for commercial properties; and Chapter 14-6, Grading Standards, to clarify requirements for retaining walls; Vail Town Code, and setting forth details in regard thereto. " Staff's recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented. Should the Planning & • Environmental Commission choose to recommend approval of the proposed amendments Staff recommends that the following findings be incorporated into a motion: "1. That the amendments are consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town, and 2. That the amendments further the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations and the Development Standards Handbook; and 3. That the amendments promote the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town and promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. " IV. ATTACHMENTS A. Map: Agricultural & Open Space and Natural Area Preservation Districts Adjacent to the Ski Mountain • ~~ U U N_ N_ ~ ~ N G ~- N Z ~ N C~- ~ 0 ~. 025 t6 :l ~ N N ~ ~ U y ~ 7 ~ ~ ' O N J ~ ~ Q z i''~~, od`$. c N 6 T ~ ~ N E ~d J ~ ~ '~VL d ti ~O y 7 ~ 6d ~ 73 O 0 C 3 N_9 ~ 7 m o 7 c O cr rw y r n ~o d U 3 E • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 12, 2006 SUBJECT: A request for a work session to discuss a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7J-12, Major Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of the Timberline Lodge, located at 1783 North Frontage Road/Lots 9-12, Buffehr Creek Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC05-0080) Applicant: Timberline Roost Lodge, LLC, represented by Mauriello Planriing Group, LLC Planner: George Ruther I. SUMMARY The purpose of today's work session hearing with the Planning and Environmental Commission is to allow the applicant and staff an opportunity to . present the revised major exterior alteration application to allow for the construction of Timberline Lodge and receive feedback from the Commission on the proposed revisions. The presentation will include: A powerpoint presentation of the applicant's revised major exterior alteration request and associated development applications; An overview of the applicable review criteria to be used by the Commission; and A comparative summary of the development standards and zoning regulations. The Commission is not being asked to take any formal action on this application at this time. As such, staff is not providing a formal recommendation at this time. The Commission, however, is being asked to provide any additional feedback regarding the proposal in anticipation of a final decision at a future public hearing. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Timberline Roost Lodge, L.L:C., represented by Mauriello Planning Group, L.L.C., has submitted a revised major exterior alteration development review application to the Town of Vail Community Development Department to facilitate the redevelopment of the Roost Lodge, located at 1783 North Frontage Road. The development application includes: • 1) A revised major exterior alteration to allow for the demolition of the existing Roost Lodge and the construction of the new Timberline Lodge. The development site of the Timberline Lodge is located at 1783 North Frontage • Road/Lots 9-12, Buffehr Creek Subdivision. According to the stamped topographic survey, the development site occupies approximately 1.988 acres or 86,597 square feet. The applicant is proposing to cohstruct a new three to four story tall lodge comprised of 98 accommodation units, 29 dwelling units, 2 employee housing units with above and below grade parking spaces. The applicant anticipates that the new lodge will be operated by Marriott or another national hotel brand as a "limited service" lodge. A comparative summary of the allowed and proposed development standards has been included in Section V of this memorandum. A vicinity map has been attached for reference. (Attachment A) III. BACKGROUND The Roost Lodge was originally constructed in the early 1970's as a motel project. The existing lodge contains 72 hotel rooms, one dwelling unit, and a paved surface parking lot. According to the Town's files, with the exception of minor applications for repainting, new deck rails, re-roofing, etc., the Roost Lodge has seen no significant modifications since its original construction. On November 14 and 28, 2005, the applicant appeared before the Planning & Environmental Commission with a request to amend the text of the Public • Accommodation zone district to allow accommodation units to include kitchen facilities, as a conditional use in the district. Upon consideration of the request, the Commission directed staff and the applicant to prepare an amendment which would result in the creation of a new zone district purposefully intended to allow accommodation units to include kitchen facilities in certain areas of Town. On December 6, 2005, during the PEC/DRB update to the Vail Town Council, staff informed the Town Council of the recent discussions with the Planning & Environmental Commission regarding the text amendment and the creation of a new zone district. The Town Council acknowledged that the intent of the proposed text amendment may have merit, however, encouraged the staff and Commission to evaluate other options. For example, the possibility of creating a new conditional use with use specific criteria addressing the relationship of the use to other neighboring uses and development objectives of the Town or the elimination of the prohibition against kitchen facilities in accommodation units. The Town Council expressed that it may be appropriate to re-evaluate the legislative intent of the current land use policy prohibiting kitchen facilities in accommodation units. On December 20, 2005, the Community Development Department presented five possible options for addressing the applicant's desire to construct a lodge containing accommodation units with kitchen facilities. Following discussion of the various options, the Council directed staff to prepare a text amendment to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, proposing the creation of the Public Accommodation-2 (PA-2) district. • On January 9, 2006, the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission held a public hearing on a text amendment application creating the Public Accommodation-2 district and a request to rezone Lots 9-12, Buffher Creek Resubdivision to the new PA-2 district. Upon consideration of the application, the Commission voted 6-0-0 to forward a recommendation of approval of the text amendment to the Vail Town Council. On January 17, 2006, the Vail Town Council held a first reading on Ordinances 2 & 3, Series of 2006, creating the Public Accommodation-2 district and rezoning the Timberline Roost Lodge development site to the new PA-2 district, respectively. Following discussion on each ordinance, the Town Council approved both ordinances on first reading. Second reading of Ordinances 2 & 3 is presently scheduled for Tuesday, February 7`n On January 18, 2006, the Town of Vail Design Review Board held a conceptual review meeting to review the revised major exterior alteration application for the Timberline Roost Lodge. On April 10, 2006, the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission held a public hearing to review the proposed Roost Lodge Existing Grades Topographic Map. The purpose of the review was to determine the existing grade conditions that would be used by the Town to verify compliance with the building height regulations. Upon review of the map, the Commission voted unanimously to approve the map as presented. • IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS. Vail Land Use Plan According to the Official Land Use Plan for the Town of Vail, the development site has a land use designation of Medium Density Residential. Pursuant to the Vail Land Use Plan, "The Medium Density Residential land use designation includes sites for housing which would typically be designed as attached units with common walls. Densifies in this category would range from 3 to 74 dwelling units per buildable acre. Additional types of uses in this category would include private recreation facilities, private parking facilities and institutional/public uses such as churches, fire stations, and parks and open space facilities. " Title 12, Zonina Reaulations PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION-2 ZONE DISTRICT (in part) CHAPTER 7 Commercial and Business Districts Article J. PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION - 2 (PA-2) DISTRICT • 12-7J-1: PURPOSE: The public accommodation -2 district is intended to provide sites for lodges, limited service lodges, and residential accommodations on a short term basis, for visitors and guests, together with such public and semipublic facilities and • commercial/retail and related visitor oriented uses as may be appropriately located within the same district and compatible with adjacent land uses. This district is intended to provide for lodging sites located outside the periphery of the Town's Vail Village and Lionshead commercial core areas. The public accommodation - 2 district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities commensurate with lodge uses, and to maintain the desirable resort qualities of the district by establishing appropriate site development standards. Additional nonresidential uses are allowed as conditional uses which enhance the nature of Vail as a vacation community, and where permitted uses are intended to function compatibly with the high density lodging character of the district. 12-7J-2: PERMITTED USES: The following uses shall be permitted in the PA-2 district: Lodges, including accessory eating, drinking, or retail establishments located within the principal use and not occupying more than ten percent (10%) of the total gross residential floor area of the main structure or structures on the site; additional accessory dining areas may be located on an outdoor deck, porch, or terrace. Limited service lodge, including accessory eating, drinking, or retail establishments located within the principal use and not occupying more than ten percent (10%) of the total gross residential floor area of the main structure or • structures on the site; additional accessory dining areas may be located on an outdoor deck, porch, or terrace.. 12-7J-3: CONDITIONAL USES: The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the PA-2 district, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of chanter 16 of this title: Bed and breakfast, as further regulated by section 12-14-18 of this title. Fractional fee club units as further regulated by subsection 12-16-7A8 of this title. Lodges, including accessory eating, drinking, or retail establishments located within the principal use and occupying between ten percent (10%) and fifteen percent (15%) of the total gross residential floor area of the buildings, grounds and facilities. Public or commercial parking facilities or structures. Public transportation terminals. Public utility and public service uses. Theaters and convention facilities. Type III employee housing units as provided in chapter 13 of this title. • 12-7J-4: ACCESSORY USES: 4 The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the PA-2 district: Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in accordance with the provisions of section 12-14-12 of this title. Meeting rooms. Swimming pools, tennis courts, patios, or other recreation facilities customarily incidental to permitted uses. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof. 12-7J-6: SETBACKS: In the PA-2 district, the minimum front setback shall be twenty feet (20'), the minimum side setback shall be twenty feet (20'), and the minimum rear setback shall be twenty feet (20'). At the discretion of the planning and environmental commission and/or the design review board. variations to the setback standards outlined above may be approved during the review of exterior alternations or modifications (section 12-7A-12 of this article) subiect to the applicant demonstrating compliance with the following criteria: A.Proposed building setbacks provide necessary separation between buildings and riparian areas, geologically sensitive areas and other environmentally sensitive areas. • B.Proposed building setbacks will provide adequate availability of light, air and open space. C.Proposed building setbacks will provide a compatible relationship with buildings and uses on adjacent properties. D.Proposed building setbacks will result in creative design solutions or other public benefits that could not otherwise be achieved by conformance with prescribed setback standards. 12-7J-7: HEIGHT: For a flat roof or mansard roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed forty five feet (45'). For a sloping roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed forty eight feet (48'). 12-7J-8: DENSITY CONTROL: Up to one hundred fifty (1501 sauare feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) may be permitted for each one hundred (1001 sauare feet of buildable site area. Final determination of allowable gross residential floor area shall be made by the planning and environmental commission in accordance with section 12-7J-12 of this article. Specifically. in determining allowable gross residential floor area the planning and environmental commission shall make a finding that proposed • gross residential floor area is in conformance with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan. Total density shall not exceed twenty five (25) dwelling units per acre of buildable site area. For the purposes of calculating density, employee housing units, limited service lodge units, accommodation units and fractional fee club units shall not be counted towards density (dwelling units per • acre). A dwelling unit in amultiple-family building may include one or more attached accommodation units. 12-7J-9: SITE COVERAGE: Site coveraae shall not exceed sixty five percent (65%1 of the total site area. Final determination of allowable site coveraae shall be made by the planninq and environmental commission and/or the design review board in accordance with section 12-7J-12 of this article. Specifically, in determining allowable site coveraae the planninq and environmental commission and/or the design review board shall make a finding that proposed site coveraae is in conformance with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan. 12-7J-11: PARKING AND LOADING: Off street parking and loading shall be provided in accordance with chapter 10 of this title. At least seventy five percent (75%) of the required parking shall be located within the main building or buildings and hidden from public view. No at grade or above grade surface parking or loading area shall be located in any required front setback area. Below grade underground structured parking and short term guest loading and drop off shall be permitted in the required front setback subject to the approval of the planning and environmental commission and/or the design review board. • 12-7J-12: EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS OR MODIFICATIONS: A. Review Required: The construction of a new building or the alteration of an existing building shall be reviewed by the design review board in accordance with chapter 11 of this title. However, any project which adds additional dwelling units, accommodation units, fractional fee club units, limited service lodge units, any project which adds more than one thousand (1,000) square feet of commercial floor area or common space, or any project which has substantial off site impacts (as determined by the administrator) shall be reviewed by the planning and environmental commission as a major exterior alteration in accordance with this chapter and section 12-3-6 of this title. Complete applications for major exterior alterations shall be submitted in accordance with administrative schedules developed by the department of community development for planning and environmental commission and design review board review. The following submittal items are required: 1. Application: An application shall be made by the owner of the building or the building owner's authorized agent or representative on a form provided by the administrator. Any application for condominiumized buildings shall be authorized by the condominium association in conformity with all pertinent requirements of the condominium association's declarations. 2. Application; Contents: The administrator shall establish the submittal requirements for an exterior alteration or modification application. A complete list • of the submittal requirements shall be maintained by the administrator and filed in the department of community development. Certain submittal requirements may be waived and/or modified by the administrator and/or the reviewing body if it is 6 • demonstrated by the applicant that the information and materials required are not relevant to the proposed development or applicable to the planning documents _ that comprise the Vail comprehensive plan. The administrator and/or the reviewing body may require the submission of additional plans, drawings, specifications, samples and other materials if deemed necessary to properly evaluate the proposal. 3. Work Sessions/Conceptual Review: If requested by either the applicant or the administrator, submittals may proceed to a work session with the planning and environmental commission, a conceptual review with the design review board, or a work session with the town council. 4. Hearing: The public hearing before the planning and environmental commission shall be held in accordance with section 12-3-6 of this title. The planning and environmental commission may approve the application as submitted, approve the application with conditions or modifications, or deny the application. The decision of the planning and environmental commission may be appealed to the town council in accordance with section 12-3-3 of this title. 5. Lapse Of Approval: Approval of an exterior alteration as prescribed by this article shall lapse and become void three (3) years following the date of approval by the design review board unless, prior to the expiration, a building permit is issued and construction is commenced and diligently pursued to completion. Administrative extensions shall be allowed for reasonable and unexpected delays as long as code provisions affecting the proposal have not changed. • 12-7J-13: COMPLIANCE BURDEN: It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence before the planning and environmental commission and the design review board that the proposed exterior alteration or new development is in compliance with the purposes of the public accommodation zone district, and that the proposal does not otherwise have a significant negative effect on the character of the neighborhood, and that the proposal substantially complies with other applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan. 12-7J-14: MITIGATION OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS: Property owners/developers shall also be responsible for mitigating direct impacts of their development on public infrastructure and in all cases mitigation shall bear a reasonable relation to the development impacts. Impacts may be determined based on reports prepared by qualified consultants. The extent of mitigation and public amenity improvements shall be balanced with the aoals of redevelopment and will be determined by the plannina and environmental commission in review of development proiects and conditional use permits., Substantial off site impacts may include, but are not limited to, the following: deed restricted employee housing, roadway improvements, pedestrian walkway improvements, streetscape improvements, stream tract/bank restoration, loading/delivery, public art improvements, and similar improvements. The intent. of this section is to only require mitigation for large scale • redevelopment/development projects which produce substantial off site impacts. VI. ZONING ANALYSIS 7 Address/Legal Description: 1783 North Frontage Road/Lots 9-12, Buffehr Creek Subdivision Zoning: Public Accommodation-2 (PA-2) District Land Use Designation: Medium Density Residential Development Standard Lot Area: Density: AU's GRFA****: Building Height: Site Coverage****: Landscape Area: Setbacks****: North: West: East: South: Allowed/Required 10,000 sq. ft. min. 49 Dwelling Units Unlimited 129,896 sq. ft. 48 feet 56,288.23 sq. ft. (65%) 25,979 sq. ft. (30%) 2/27/06 PEC Submittal 86,597 sq. ft. 39 Dwelling Units 124 AU's 100,240 sq. ft. 48 feet 52,864 sq. ft. 31,960 sq. ft. 6112/06 PEC Submittal N/C 28 Dwelling Units 98 AU's 75,028 sq. ft. N/C 52,545 sq. ft. 39,639 sq. ft. 0'-20' 0'-20' 0'-20' 0'-20' 20' 20' 20' 20' 20' 20' 20' 20' Parking: 156 spaces 196 spaces 190 spaces Loading: 1 berth 1 berth 1 berth Employee 3 units (5 beds) 3 units (5 beds) 2 units (4 beds) Housing: **** Subject to review and approval by the Planning & Environmental Commission. VII. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Land Use Zoninq North: Residential Two Family Primary/Secondary Residential South: I-70 ROW N/A East: Residential Two Family Primary/Secondary Residential West: Residential Residential Cluster District VIII. MAJOR EXTERIOR ALTERATION REVIEW CRITERIA Section 12-7A-13, Compliance Burden, Vail Town Code, outlines the review criteria for major exterior alteration applications proposed within the Public Accommodation (PA) zone district. According to Section 12-7H-13, Vail Town Code, a major exterior alteration shall be reviewed for compliance with the following criteria: 1) Compliance with the purposes of the Public Accommodation zone district; 2) That the proposal does not otherwise have a significant negative effect on the character of the neighborhood; and • • 8 • 3) That the proposal substantially complies with other applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the major exterior alteration application, staff recommends that the Commission makes the following finding as part of the motion: "Pursuant to Secfion 72-7H-8, Compliance Burden, Vail Town Code, the applicant has proven by a preponderance of the evidence before the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Design Review Board that the proposed major exterior alteration is in compliance with the purposes of the Public Accommodation zone district, that the proposal is for a development site located outside of the scope of the Vail Village Master Plan, the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail Village Streetscape Master Plan and therefore these planning documents are not applicable to this application; and That the proposal does not otherwise have a significant negative effect on the character of the neighborhood, and that the proposal substantially complies with other applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan. " IX. DISCUSSION ISSUES Completeness of Application • The Community Development Department has completed a "completeness" review of the revised major exterior alteration application . for the construction of the Timberline Lodge. Upon completion of the review it has been determined that the application is largely complete. However, additional revised materials are required to be submitted prior to a final review of the major exterior alteration application. The applicant needs to provide the following: 1. Stamped, addressed envelopes with a list of the property owners adjacent to the subject property. 2. A written statement describing the revised proposal and how the proposal complies with the applicable adopted master plans and planning documents. Special attention shall be given to the review criteria outlined in Sections 12-7J-6, 8, & 9. 3. A revised landscape plan. (please consult the New Construction Application for Design Review for minimum submittal requirements) 4. A roof height plan demonstrating compliance with the prescribed height limitation including roof top elevations for the flat roofed portion of the building. 5. Revised architectural elevations. (please consult the New Construction Application for Design Review for minimum submittal requirements) 6. Please address the written comments addressed in the letter from Tom Kassmel, dated June 1, 2006. (Attachment B) 7. Revised architectural floor plans of all levels of the proposed • building. (please consult the New Construction Application for Design Review for minimum submittal requirements) 9 8. A revised 8.5" x 11" reduced plan set • Is there any additional information required by the Planning & Environmental Commission prior to final review? Mitigation of Development Impacts • Pursuant to Section 12-7A-14 of the Zoning Regulations, "Property owners/developers shall also be responsible for mitigating direct impacts of their development on public infrastructure and in all cases mitigation shall bear a reasonable relation to the development impacts. Impacts may be determined based on reports prepared by qualified consultants. The extent of mitigation and public amenity improvements shall be balanced with the goals of redevelopment and will be determined by the planning and environmental commission in review of development projects and conditional use permits. Substantial off site impacts may include, but are not limited to, the following: deed restricted employee housing, roadway improvements, pedestrian walkway improvements, streetscape improvements, stream tract/bank restoration, loading/delivery, public art improvements, and similar improvements. The intent of this section is to only require mitigation for large scale redevelopment/development projects which produce substantial off site impacts." In keeping with the intent of Section 12-7A-14, Mitigation of Development • Impacts, the applicant is proposing to offset the impacts of the proposed development by providing employee housing fora minimum of four employees, placing approximately 365 linear feet of existing overhead power line underground, and constructing a new public transit stop along the North Frontage in front of the new lodge. With the exception of the providing employee housing, the applicant will be required to work with Holy Cross Energy, the Town of Vail, and the Colorado Department of Transportation to underground the overhead utility line and construct the new public transit stop. Are there any other direct impacts of the proposed development besides employee generation, utility line relocation, and public transit enhancements that the Commission believes the applicant should mitigate? X. STAFF RECOMMENDATION As this is a worksession meeting only, staff will not be forwarding a recommendation on the major exterior alteration to the Planning & Environmental Commission at this time. XI. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Vicinity Map • Attachment B: Written comments addressed in the letter from Tom Kassmel, dated June 1, 2006. 10 • • • 11 ATTACHMENT B • TOWN OF VAtL ' Department of Public Works & Transportation 1309 Elkhorn Drive Vail, CO 816$7 970-479-2158 Fax: 970-479-2166 www. vailgov. com MEMO To: George Ruther From: Tom Kassmel, Town Engineer • Re: Timberline Roost Lodge Redevelopment Date: 06/01/06 The Town of Vail Public Works Department has received and reviewed the Timberline Roost Lodge Redevelopment submittal received 5/22/06. The following are comments that should be addressed prior to final approval. General Comments 1. The access points for the loading/unloading area do not meet the 40' centerline turning radius. 2. The bus shelter should be moved to the southwestern property line and an easement provided. 3. The grading at the Meadow Ridge Rd switch back will need to be flattened to work with the offset guardrail. 4. Provide additional grading/spot elevation detail for the drainage along the backside of the building. 5. A final approved traffic study shall be required prior to PEC final approval. A traffic impact fee of $6500 per net increase peak hour trip shall be assessed to the development. Portions of this fee maybe offset by traffic improvements made to the S. Frontage Rd. to specifically include Frontage Rd. roadway widening, Frontage Rd. sidewalk improvements, and the construction of a transit stop. 6. Please clarify the Trash truck turning movements. The exhibit shows the truck . entering the exit and exiting the entrance. This movement conflicts with site traffic. 12 • 7. Show sight distance for access points on both the site plan and landscape plan. 8. Provide Art In Public Places contribution, coordinate with AIPP. 9. The pedestrian connection between the bus stop and Meadow Ridge Rd. shall be within a dedicated Public access easement. This can be dedicated in conjunction with the drainage easement in this area, however the 10' proposed drainage easement should be widened to accommodate the walk plus a 2' buffer and also be named as a general utility, drainage, pedestrian access easement. 10. The continuation of the concrete pedestrian walk from the proposed bus stop to Buffehr Creek Rd should be required, the walk shall be a minimum of 10' wide. Conditions of Approval 1. The Town of Vail General Notes shall be added. (Notes can be e-mailed upon request) 2. Please add Utility Signature block and have all utilities sign acknowledging acceptance of utility impacts and design. All easements proposed to be abandoned shall be noted and approval from appropriate entities shall be gained. 3. Final Civil drawings shall be approved and meet all Town standards prior to submittal of building permit. Detailed comments will be provided at that time. The approval of Civil drawings may take between 2 to 4 months. 4. Approvals from all impacted property owners shall be obtained. A written letter of consent to the required easements will be required for Civil approval. Recorded easements will be required prior to construction. • 5. All construction staging issues shall be resolved prior to construction including staging, phasing, access, schedules, traffic control, emergency access, parking, loading and delivery, etc... 6. A ROW/Utility permit shall be obtained and approved by the Town of Vail and CDOT prior to commencing any construction within public Right of Way. 7. All improvements within CDOT ROW shall be approved by CDOT including all Frontage Rd improvements and landscaping. This approval will be required prior to Civil plan set approval. This includes a CDOT Access Permit and CDOT notice to proceed. 8. Prior to approval of an Excavation permit a shoring and excavation plan shall be submitted including; excavation phasing, engineered shoring plans with plan, profile and cross sections. Cross Sections and plans shall include all existing conflicts (i.e. utilities). Any shoring within CDOT ROW will require approval from CDOT. Any shoring within the Vail public ROW will require Town of Vail approval and a revocable ROW permit. 9. A Storm Water Discharge CDPHE Permit and all applicable ACOE permits (i.e. Dewatering) shall be submitted prior to construction. 10. Provide engineered stamped final drainage report, pavement design report, and geotechnical report. 11. The S. Frontage Rd. improvements shown shall include necessary lighting/irri gation/signage. 12. Building cannot be built over existing easements as shown without those • easements being abandoned. This requires approval from all interested utilities and relocation of any existing utilities. 13 13. An easement should be provided at the Northwest corner of the property to • provide for the existing encroachment of the roadway, drainage and snow storage. This shall include the existing asphalt and shoulder area and a 5' buffer area for snow storage and guardrail. Details shown shall meet Town standards (i.e. 4,000 psi concrete with fiber mesh, sidewalk detail shall be 6" concrete on 6"base, additional detailed comments to follow during Civil P C] C 14 • • • 11 ATTACHMENT B TOWN OF VAS Department of Public Works 8c Transportation 1309 Elkhorn Drive Vail, CO 81657 970-479-2158 Fax: 970-479-2166 www. vailgov.com MEMO To: George Ruther From: Tom Kassmel, Town Engineer Re: Timberline Roost Lodge Redevelopment • Date: 06/01/06 The Town of Vail Public Works Department has received and reviewed the Timberline Roost Lodge Redevelopment submittal received 5/22/06. The following are comments that should be addressed prior to final approval. General Comments 1. The access points for the loading/unloading area do not meet the 40' centerline turning radius. 2. The bus shelter should be moved to the southwestern property line and an easement provided. 3. The grading at the Meadow Ridge Rd switch back will need to be flattened to work with the offset guardrail. 4. Provide additional grading/spot elevation detail for the drainage along the backside of the building. 5. A final approved traffic study shall be required prior to PEC final approval. A traffic impact fee of $6500 per net increase peak hour trip shall be assessed to the development. Portions of this fee maybe offset by traffic improvements made to the S. Frontage Rd. to specifically include Frontage Rd. roadway widening, Frontage Rd. sidewalk improvements, and the construction of a transit stop. 6. Please clarify the Trash truck turning movements. The exhibit shows the truck • entering the exit and exiting the entrance. This movement conflicts with site traffic. 12 • 7. Show sight distance for access points on both the site plan and landscape plan. 8. Provide Art In Public Places contribution, coordinate with AIPP. 9. The pedestrian connection between the bus stop and Meadow Ridge Rd. shall be within a dedicated Public access easement. This can be dedicated in conjunction with the drainage easement in this area, however the 10' proposed drainage easement should be widened to accommodate the walk plus a 2' buffer and also be named as a general utility, drainage, pedestrian access easement. 10. The continuation of the concrete pedestrian walk from the proposed bus stop to Buffehr Creek Rd should be required, the walk shall be a minimum of 10' wide. Conditions of Approval 1. The Town of Vail General Notes shall be added. (Notes can be e-mailed upon request) 2. Please add Utility Signature block and have all utilities sign acknowledging acceptance of utility impacts and design. All easements proposed to be abandoned shall be noted and approval from appropriate entities shall be gained. 3. Final Civil drawings shall be approved and meet all Town standards prior to submittal of building permit. Detailed comments will be provided at that time. The approval of Civil drawings may take between 2 to 4 months. 4. Approvals from all impacted property owners shall be obtained. A written letter of consent to the required easements will be required for Civil approval. 5. Recorded easements will be required prior to construction. All construction staging issues shall be resolved prior to construction including staging, phasing, access, schedules, traffic control, emergency access, parking, loading and delivery, etc... 6. A ROW/Utility permit shall be obtained and approved by the Town of Vail and CDOT prior to commencing any construction within public Right of Way. 7. All improvements within CDOT ROW shall be approved by CDOT including all Frontage Rd improvements and landscaping. This approval will be required prior to Civil plan set approval. This includes a CDOT Access Permit and CDOT notice to proceed. 8. Prior to approval of an Excavation permit a shoring and excavation plan shall be submitted including; excavation phasing, engineered shoring plans with plan, profile and cross sections. Cross Sections and plans shall include all existing conflicts (i.e. utilities). Any shoring within CDOT ROW will require approval from CDOT. Any shoring within the Vail public ROW will require Town of Vail approval and a revocable ROW permit. 9. A Storm Water Discharge CDPHE Permit and all applicable ACOE permits (i.e. Dewatering) shall be submitted prior to construction. 10. Provide engineered stamped final drainage report, pavement design report, and geotechnical report. 11. The S. Frontage Rd. improvements shown shall include necessary 1 ighting/irri gation/signage. 12. Building cannot be built over existing easements as shown without those easements being abandoned. This requires approval from all interested utilities and relocation of any existing utilities. 13 13. An easement should be provided at the Northwest corner of the property to • provide for the existing encroachment of the roadway, drainage and snow storage. This shall include the existing asphalt and shoulder area and a 5' buffer area for snow storage and guardrail. Details shown shall meet Town standards (i.e. 4,000 psi concrete with fiber mesh, sidewalk detail shall be 6" concrete on 6"base, additional detailed comments to follow during Civil P • • 14 5/22/2006 TIMBERLINE LODGE & CONDOS Hotel Unlts & 28 Condos ail, Colorado LJA Project #05154 HOTEL Room Types 1-BDRM 1-BDRM 1-BDRM 1-BDRM 1-BDRM 1-BDRM 1-BDRM 1-BDRM 2-BDRM STUDIO STUDIO STUDIO STUDIO Totals I~ti~~~~r~l~w ~9~~~~~~ a rchitects~~j engineers Irmorporrted Square Total Square Footage LEVEL-2 LEVEL-1 LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 Total Numbe LEVEL 4 Footage Per Room of Rooms Per Room Type 975 1 1 975 895 ~ 1 1 895 818 ~ t 1 818 801 ~ 2 ( 2 1,602 802 ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 I 1 802 855 ~ ~ 1 ~ I ~ 1 855 801 ~ I ~ 1 JJ~ ~ 1 801 696 ~ ~ 1 ~ 1 I 1 ~ 3 2,086 573 ~ ~ 2 ~ 2 ~ 2 ~ 6 3,438 642 ~ ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ 3 1,926 726 ~ ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ 1 I 3 2,178 918 ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ 1 916 548 ~ ~ ~ 1 II ~ ~ 1 548 843 ~ ~ 1 I I ~ 1 ~ 843 495 ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ 495 396 ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ ~ 8 3,168 488 ~ ~ ~ 21 ~ 25 ~ 14 ~ ~ 80 28,080 697 ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ ~ 3 2,091 0 ~ 0 ~ 28 ~ 38 ~ 32 ~ 0 ~ 98 52,521 Square Total Total Square CONDO Number of Room Types Footage LEVEL-1 LEVEL-2 LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4 Units Per Footage Per per Room Room Type Level 2-BDRM CONDO 803 1 2 3 2,409 2-BDRM CONDO 802 2 3 5 4,010 2-BDRM CONDO 801 5 11 16 12,818 2-BDRM CONDO 818 2 2 4 3,272 STUDIO CONDO 468 ~ ~ EHU 2 EHUs 0 0 Totals JJ 0 ~ 0 I 0 ~ 0 ~ 10 18 28 22,507 TOTAL BUILDING SQ. FT. (Hotel 75,028 HOTEL 52,521 70.002% CONDO 22,b07 29.998% Note: Square Footage includes Hotel Guest Rooms & Condo Units Only ~~~,~, ~1, ~ I ~ /I ~~, ggqq .~~~~ I Lilt I I il~ If~ w v.~ o j' o ~ f~ ~^$~~, (, m$~z 0. 3 b / ' m' `~4a~ ~.. 1, Id~ III ~ ` s ~ ~ h ~' ~~~ ~~ ~~~ /fl ~ ~ i ~ I ( ~~~, ,~ ti L. J ar~v~: `~ ~/ '~ y ; ~ r ~, I 1 1 + i / ~ a ~~~ I I / ~ !I I I ! ~ ~» '~~ I yl ~~~~~~ .~ a ~ I ,~ 7 ry, I h ~ __ II ~~ r I ~~ I -_ I ~ 1 r' j _. ,R, ~ a I ~ ~, I .~ I I~ i I {. ~~, ~~ "'~ I ' ~I 1 H' I ~~~ ~I~r ~. ~ I I' ' i ~' ! !~ ~ I I I ~~ I I 134f'1 I V~rt~ ~,. ,.I I ~~ I i i ~I tll ~~ 7i i '~ 1 - I I ~n ~ ~I~' fie,'' ~ ;~ al ~ I ~` ~ ~r ~ ~ ~ . : ) ° i 1'I r ~ ~ ~ r I~ .fir, a~, i ~ ~. ~~~ I ,~ >~ ~, I ~, ~ 1 ~ r:__ ~_ t i J~ ~~ ~ ~ ~- ~.I .'1 ~~ ,.~ r ~ j ,~, ~{< 9 - ;~~ r _ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~:~ r t. I 1 , _ a y ~ ~ I it t n {/{J1 ~ . _ ~ ~I ~ .i 4~ ~i1 1r -f r ~" ~ r i1 I~ r~'';.i ~ rT I I C George Ruther -Roost Lodge Site • From: "Johannes Faessler" <jfaesster@sonnenalp.com> To: <gruther@vailgov.com> Date: 06!08/2006 2:32:56 PM Subject: Roost Lodge Site George: Please forward these comment to PEC: I hereby express my full support for the 'Roost Lodge" redevelopment proposal you are considering today. My understanding of the relevant facts is: 1. The property is zoned PA2 which allows for a hotel and 30% credit for condominiums. 2. The current plan has 99 hotel rooms (Marriott Residence Inn) and 31 two bedroom condominiums. • 3. The development plan is a straight zoning request, seeking no variances and is not an SDD. Based on the above and the definite need for mid-price hotel inventory - which is highly unlikely to ever get build within Vail Village -, I encourage the PEC to make this project possible. It is a good and needed project for Vail. Sincerely, Johannes Faessler 20 Vail Road Vail, Colorado • Page 1 George Ruther -Timberline Lodge Project Page 1 From: "Mike Spriggs" <jmsalpha@earthlink.net> • To: <gruther@vailgov.com> Date: 06/08/2006 7:39:09 PM Subject: Timberline Lodge Project ' June 8, 2006 Town of Vail Planning Commission Town of Vail Planning Department 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Re: Proposed Timberline Lodge Condominium Project Dear Planning Commission: I am writing to voice support of the proposed demolition and renovation of the former Roost Lodge, now known as the Timberline Lodge Project. As full-time residents at 1477 Aspen Grove Lane, in the Buffer Creek neighborhood, my wife and I support the renovation of the dilapidated Roost hotel. The redevelopment of the Roost will be a benefit to our neighborhood and to the Town of Vail. I understand that the developer is proposing a project that is consistent with its existing use as well as within the Town of Vail Zoning guidelines. • The proposed project will be a great improvement over the existing aging hotel and should enhance the value of properties in the neighborhood. As residents, we rely on the Roost for affordable accommodations for our visitors. Not all guests can afford to stay at the higher priced hotels, such as the Sonnenalp and Four Seasons. We were disappointed to hear that the Planning Commission did not support the previous project and that the revised project includes a significant reduction in hotel rooms. The Town needs more mid-priced hotel accommodations and my wife and I encourage you to support this Project at your next Planning Commission Meeting. Thank you, Michael Spriggs • FROM :HAAGENDAZS FAX N0. :9704765054 Jun. 08 2006 09:49AM P1 • June 9, 2006 Town of Vail Planning Commission C/o Mr. George Ruther Town of Vail Planning Department 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Planning Commission Members: I am writing in support of the proposed demolition and renovation of the former Roost Lodge project. In operating the Haagen-Dazs store in Vail since 1994, we are very concerned about the loss of affordable housing and hotel rooms in the Town of Vail. The loss of affordable hotel rooms has a direct effect on the sales of small businesses in Vail Village. • In recent years, the Town of Vail has replaced affordable hotel projects such as the Chateau at Vail (former Holiday Inn) and the Vail Village Inn with high-end hotel and condominium projects such as the Four Seasons and Vail Plaza. 6y continuing this trend, you are effectively eliminating any type of affordable accommodations for families . and guests throughout Vail. At this time, the only affordable hotel accommodations of any size in the Town are the Roost and the Holiday Inn. ~ The lack of affordable accommodations has and will continue to have a significant negative effect on the retail sales for restaurants and shops in the Village. As you are aware, this is one of only a couple of sites in the Town zoned for accommodation units where affordable hotel and condominium units can be developed. It would be a shame to waste this opportunity. The Roost has served the. low to moderate priced traveler for as long as just about any other hotel in Vail. It was here long before the hillside residential developments that have been constructed behind the Frontage Road. The proposed plan is consistent with what has been contemplated by the Town Council in its Genera! Plan. It also supports the goal of the Town to secure additional hotel rooms within the Town boundaries. I would encourage you to support this Project. Sincerely, .~~ Kell urcell • June 8, 2006 Town of Vail Planning Commission Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Re: Proposed Roost Condominium Project Dear Planning Commission: I am writing in support of the proposed Timberline Lodge Project in West Vail. As a small business owner in Vail, I am in full support of this project. The proposed project will bring additional affordable hotel and condominium units to our Town. Both are essential to the long range health of our economy. Our firm handles the management and leasing of condominium projects in East Vail. We often recommend the Roost as an alternative to those visitors that cannot afford a condominium during the high season. The Roost has filled this low to mid-price niche in the market for a very long time. The proposed Residence Inn will continue to meet this demand. I hope you will support this project. Sincerely, _... Gt~ ~~-_--_.-; Karl Edgerton `1'1Q -~~a- `t~6Y Stephen Connolly P.O. Box 3003 Vail, CO 81658 (470)476-1346 • June 9, 2006 Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission C/o Mr. George Ruher, Chief of Planning Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 RE: Redevelopment of the Roost Lode Dear George: I write to you today in support of Timberline's proposed redevelopment of the Roost Lodge and urge you not to take any additional rooms out of the project. As a longtime observer of the community, I believe that we need to maintain a mix of lodging options for our guests. As it stands today, the current projects under development cater to the upper end of the market. Not enough is being done in the area of affordable lodging that would help to attract families and "entry level" guests. How many of Vail's current residents started out as "ski bums" doing whatever it took to cut costs in order to come to Vail? • As an active participant in the process of soliciting special events, I can think of a number of Town funded projects that need to be able to offer more affordable lodging options. TEVA Mountain Games, Spring Back To Vail, the Farmers' Market and the King of the Mountain Volleyball Tournament all benefit by having less expensive lodging available for guests. What good does it do for the Town to spend money on events that bring people to Vail only to have those guests not be able to afford to stay in Vail for the night? This is not just my opinion. In a joint meeting of the VLMDAC and the CSE, Beth Slifer made the point that the Town needs to be careful as we develop our lodging inventory. She warned that there is a real danger that we could potentially price ourselves out of the market if all we do is develop high-end projects. I am concerned that this project has already been reduced by 30 units. If it is reduced any further, the developer maybe forced to change direction and create high-end condominiums to make it work financially. I am also concerned that there seems to be a small group of people that are complaining about this project that is important for the good of the greater community. We need to stand up against the vocal minority and do what is right for residents and taxpayers at large. I support the redevelopment of the Roost Lodge as proposed and urge you to approve the latest plans without further reduction of hot beds. regards, • U '~ Ste ten C nnolly dawn Ristow P.O. Box 3003 Vail, CO 81658 • 970/476-6826 phone dawnsk8vail@hotmail.com June 9, 2006 Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission C/o Mr. George Ruther, Chief of Planning Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 RE: Roost Redevelopment Dear Commission: The Roost Lodge needs to be redeveloped and I support the plans proposed by Timberline Commercial Real Estate. I know the importance of affordable lodging first hand. As a skating coach, I started brining students to Vail in 1981. I moved here full • time in 1998 and own a home in Town with my husband. He also supports the proposed redevelopment plan. It is very important for Vail to be able to offer reasonably priced accommodations. We need to offer families an affordable alternative to the Sonnenalp, the Cascade and the new hotels that are currently being built in Town. If we are not careful, we will price ourselves out of the market. Families will go to Summit County instead of coming here. As we redevelop our community, we need to make sure that we offer a range of accommodations. If we are not careful, the developers will only build high-end properties and Vail will price itself out of the family market that plays an important role in developing future guests. I urge you to approve the plans as currently proposed. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, ~.ti,.ti~~ dawn Ristow • Post Office Boz 3007 Vail, Colorado 81658-3007 910.845.8525 970.845.8430 fax peeplesC~?vail.net Y E • E P L E S I N ~ June 9, 2006 Town of Vail Planning and Zoning Commission C/O: Mr. George Ruther Hand delivered To whom it may concern, Many thanks for all of your combined efforts and great work as Vail undergoes a tremendous renaissance and dramatic change. I am writing, with respect to that change, in support of the renovation of the Roost Lodge-specifically to the proposal being submitted by Kevin Deighan. My experience with Mr. Deighan has been as a business owner, and owner of office space in the Gateway Building. Timberline Commercial Properties, Mr. Deighan's investment group, interested me in the property some four years ago. Since that time, they took a vacant, non-functioning building and completely renovated and revitalized what is now a prime office and residential location at the entrance to Vail. My support for the Roost project which they propose, is that they will take the same level of professionalism to a project which brings moderate-range lodging options for guests to our beautiful resort. I heartily endorse both the concept and the plan. Though I, like most, hate to see the disappearance of the Roost-as it has played a legendary role in affordable lodging and great stories throughout Vail's history--change is happening in Vail and a developer with a good plan and solid backing deserves the support of the community. Best of luck. Si erely, atncia E. Peeples Peeples Ink PR, Ltd. n U Home Page 1 of 1 S'TC~P ~"~ERI~E~L~P]~EN'T IN VAIL " HOME`` ZONING T-IISTORY CROSSROADS LIONSHEAD WEST VAIL ~( t ~. Ct~NTACZ' U5 , . , : ,.. West Vail West Vail has not been left out of the 2006 drive to up zone Vail. A redevelopment plan for the Roost Lodge with eigl~It floors was put before the town. Again local residents were appropriately alal-Ined. Rumor has it, the money behind this Roost remodel is none other that the Crossroads developer. Although this first Roost plan was turned down, you know will be back on the table soon. A master planning process has also been initiated for the West Vail colrunerrial areas. It is very important that the residents get intimately involved in this important process. The town of Vail plamung department, at the first master planning meeting, has proposed an up zoning of these commercial areas by 400%. Isn't that incredible. The Mall building would go up to 4 floors. At least in West Vail the outrageous proposal of a 400% up zoning is on the table for discussion. We must g~ im~olved and educate the town that we want to preserve our low density village community. P,efore we up zone West Va we should have studies in hand which demonstrate unequivocally the need for such an increase. We should be assured that such increases will not adversely affect the property values in the area. And, we must be reassured the infrastructure, such as the roundabouts, can handle this uicreased traffic. The Crossroads vote is the first step in haltirlg this village wide drive to up zone Vail that so threatens our lifestyle. ~X~e must dlaw the line there. We must send a message to our elected officials that the people must be consulted and be the final decision makers in this up zoning drive. Aild you thought the Crossroads vote was just about Vail Village. ~N~ Web site designed &. hosted at HomesteadT"" • -r ~' sPOres ~ ence~ca~nmenC 6/8/06 Town of Vail Planning Commission Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Town of Vail Planning Commission, I am writing in full support of the proposed Timberline/Roost project currently under consideration at the West Vail site of The Roost Hotel. This project is "Right" for so many reasons, the least of which is the overall economic benefit to our town. There is a strong and underserved need for affordable hotels in the Valley and more so in • Vail proper. Much of the mid to lower end bed base is utilized by the younger generations and families who heavily attend special events, ski and ride, dine and spend with local merchants. We cannot afford to lose this economical bed base which the renovated Roost will continue to serve in a new and improved fashion. This is keeping current and potential customers at Vail's doorstep. This tier of product is truly critical to rounding out the lodging and condo mix in Vail. As a Vail business owner for over ten years, I fully support the proposed Timberline/Roost and am confident that the TOV Planning Commission will do the same. Do the right thing and get behind this well thought out project. I encourage you to not let the vocal minority control the process and ultimately the much needed benefits the Timberline/Roost Lodge will deliver to our community! Regards, Jeff Brausc President/CEO Highline Sports & Entertainment, Inc. • Mauriello Planning Group Roost Lodge Adiacent Proaerty Owner List DAUPHINAIS-MOSELEY CONST INC 1404 MORAINE DR VAIL, CO 81657 MURPHREE INVESTMENTS LTD 2409 DUBLIN RD PLANO, TX 75094 FITE, KENNETH DAVID & IRMAK AYSE~ -JT 6415 E PRENTICE PL GREENWOOD VILLAGE, CO 80111 M.L. HARRIS FAMILY PTNSHP LLC 10900 HEFNER POINTE DR STE 200 • OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73120 HILLSIDE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION C/O BEMIS, GREGORY PO BOX 3438 VAIL, CO 81658 KARP, KAREN L. PO BOX 2174 VAIL, CO 81658 TURNIPSEED, JASON & COLETTE 185 SOUTH EMERSON DENVER, CO 80201 DUYOS, VIVIAN S. & JORGE R. -JT 1434 SARRIA AVE CORAL GABLES, FL 33146 GUNION, JOHN F., MARGARET M.A., & ANDREW MARK 1819 MEADOW RIDGE RD E • VAIL, CO 81657 • t CARNEY, JOHN M. • 1839 MEADOW RIDGE RD B VAIL, CO 81657-3904 PICKING, HOWARD M., III & ADELLE C. 100 LONGVIEW LN JOHNSTOWN, PA 15905 ERB, WENDY ELAINE 1819 MEADOW RIDGE RD G VAIL, CO 81657 JAMES J. BIGOS FAMILY TRUST 1834 A GLACIER CT VAIL, CO 81657 ROLLAND, JODI T. & ROBERT D. -JT 6802 TERREZA ESCONDIDA SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92673 CHATEAU TREMONTE OWNERS ASSOC INC 5299 DTC BLVD STE 500 ENGLEWOOD, CO 80111 • RALPH W. HAJOSY REVOCABLE TRUST 1725 CARVER RD GRIFFIN, GA 30224-8820 BOYMER, ROBERT JAMES PO BOX 1001 VAIL, CO 81658 NADLER, JOHN E. C/O VISTAR REAL ESTATE 635 N FRONTAGE RD 1 VAIL, CO 81657 PRAGER, DIANE M. & NELSON A. -JT 2200 E GRAND AVE ENGLEWOOD, CO 80113 LE VARN, MARIA A. & MARC -JT PO BOX 214 VAIL, CO 81658 ~ • DICKSON, PHYLLIS • 1817 MEADOW RIDGE RD 1 VAIL, CO 81657 MERRIMAN, DANNY C., JANE M. & ADAM G. 1859 MEADOW RIDGE RD A VAIL, CO 81657-3905 DEFORD, WILLIAM F. 1859 MEADOW RIDGE RD VAIL, CO 81657 FARQUHAR, JERRY L. & DEBORAH R. 1879 MEADOW RIDGE RD VAIL, CO 81657 STEITZ, STEVEN A. & CYNTHIA A. 1895 MEADOW RIDGE RD VAIL, CO 81657 BATCHELOR, ROBERT - FITZGERALD, DIANE -JT PO BOX 5854 • VAIL, CO 81658 ALEKSANDER & IRJA PIIRMA TRUSTEES 3528 ADELINE DR STOW, OH 44224 WAGENLANDER, JAMES F. -CHIN, MARY LEE -JT 2225 DAHLIA ST DENVER, CO 80207 CORRION, BRIAN 27821 S TAMIAMI TR 2 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134 CROCKETT, RUFUS PO BOX 3837 ASPEN, CO 81612 MYRON, GORDON D. - WEINBENDER, THOMAS L. 2561 28TH AVE W SEATTLE, WA 98199 • @ MOORS, STEVE & DENNIE L. -JT PO BOX 392 • EDWARDS, CO 81632 HALEY, MICHAEL S. & MARLA M. -JT 3037 SUN CREEK RIDGE RD EVERGREEN, CO 80439-8782 HERMANN, HENRY K. & MARY C. - HERMANN, KARL -JT 577 W CONESTOGA CIR GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81504 VANHEULEN, MISTY M. & JASON J. -JT PO BOX 6343 AVON, CO 81620 WOMBOLT, CHRIS & DUANE 2249 CAPE ARBOR DR VIRGINIA BEACH, VA 23451 DICORPO, DEENA M., DINO D. & EVE PO BOX 3981 8 • VAIL, CO 8165 HINMON, JOHN S. & HARRIET H. -JT 407 MEADOW RD EDWARDS, CO 81632 KRICHBAUM, PHILIP F. PO BOX 33 VAIL, CO 81658 CROCKETT,RUFUS PO BOX 3837 ASPEN, CO 81612 LEGG, RANDY G. & JOELLEN L. -JT 2000 S MADISON ST DENVER, CO 80210 TATSUMI, TETSUO - MALCUIT, EMILY -JT PO BOX 2858 EDWARDS, CO 81632 @ MOORS, HALE W. • 1i '' ~ PO BOX 3746 • AVON, CO 81620 FABER, OTTALIE & GEORGINA P O BOX 838 EAGLE, CO 81631 MUSTANG CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION C/O GUERRIERO, RANDALL 1859 MEADOW RIDGE RD VAIL, CO 81657 BUFFER CREEK WEST CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. C/O MARKA W. MOSHER POBOX902 VAIL, CO 81658 TOWN OF VAIL C/O FINANCE DEPT 75 S FRONTAGE RD VAIL, CO 81657 MUSSON, PAUL F. & ELISA M. -JT • 9402 CRYSTAL LN LONGMONT, CO 80203 HAGERMAN, PHILIP R. & JOCELYN K. 13188 LATOURETTE DR FENTON, MI 48430 COLORADO DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION 4201 E ARKANSAS AVE DENVER, CO 80222 DENVER, CO 80222 • L~ MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 12, 2006 SUBJECT: A request for a final review of a variance, from Section 12-6B-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for a garage addition within the front setback, located at 1462 Aspen Grove Lane/Lot 11, Block 2, Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing 4, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PECO~r0034) Applicant: Matthew and Doris Gobec, represented by John M. Perkins, AIA Planner: Matt Gennett • I. SUMMARY The applicant is requesting a variance from the minimum front setback standard of the Single Family Residential (SFR) zone district in order to add a single car garage bay onto a preexisting, nonconforming structure built into the front setback under Eagle County jurisdiction prior to annexation into the Town of Vail. The subject structure is asingle-family home located at 1462 Aspen Grove Lane/Lot 11, Block 2, Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing 4. A Vicinity Map is attached for reference (Attachment A). Based upon the criteria and findings in Section VIII of this memorandum, staff is recommending approval of the applicant's variance request. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant is making a request to add a 240 square foot garage addition onto the northeast corner of the single family home at 1462 Aspen Grove Lane, immediately adjacent to the outside wall of the existing 552 square foot garage. The garage addition is proposed to be one storyand will contain no Gross Residential FloorArea (GRFA); however, 192 feet of the new garage area will count toward the structure's total GRFA due the provisions of the way GRFA is calculated. Approximately 152 square feet of the garage will encroach up to sixteen feet (16') into the twenty foot (20') front set back. The existing home's attached garage encroaches up to five feet (5') from the front property line, and the corner of the proposed addition, the point closest to the front property line, would be approximately four feet back from the northern boundary of the lot. A reduced set of plans and the applicant's written request are attached for reference (Attachments B & C). III. BACKGROUND In 1980, the Eagle County Planning Commission granted a variance to the previous owners of the subject property to construct the existing home in its present location, well within the front setback and close to the road, in order to minimize the visual impact of the structure upon the ridgeline lower down on the property. 1 „ TOWN OF PAIL ~t In 1982 the e~asting home was constructed under Eagle CountyJurisdiction. • IV. REVIEWING BOARD ROLES VARIANCES: A. The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for evaluating a proposal for: The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this Title without grant of special privilege. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. 4. Such otherfactors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. B. The DRB has NO review authority on a variance, but must review any accompanying • DRB application. C. Town Council Actions of Design Review Board or Planning and Environmental Commission maybe appealed to the Town Council or by the Town Council. Town Council evaluates whether or not the Planning and Environmental Commission or Design Review Board erred with approvals or denials and can uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the board's decision. D. Staff The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided and plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines. Staff provides a staff memorandum containing background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. 2 • V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS TITLE 12, ZONING REGULATIONS: 12-6B-6: SETBACKS: In the SFR district, the rrinimum front setback shall be twenty feet (20'), the minimum side setback shall be fifteen feet (15'), and the minimum rear setback shall be fifteen feet (15'). CHAPTER 17, VARIANCES (in part) 12-17-1: PURPOSE: A. Reasons For Seeking Variance: In order to prevent or to lessen such practical difficulties and unnecessary physical hardships inconsistent with the objectives of this title as would result from strict or literal interpretation and enforcement, variances from certain regulations maybe granted. A practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship may result from the size, shape, or dimensions of a site or the location of existing structures thereon;'from topographic or physical conditions on the site or in the immediate vicinity; or from other physical limitations, street locations or conditions in the immediate vicinity. Cost or inconvenience to the applicant of strict or literal compliance with a regulation shall not be a reason for granting a variance. B. Development Standards Excepted: Variances may be granted only with respect to the development standards prescribed for each district, including lot area and site dimensions, setbacks, distances between buildings, height, density control, building bulk • control, site coverage, usable open space, landscaping and site development, and parking and loading requirements; or with respect to the provisions of chapter 11 of this title, governing physical development on a site. C. Use Regulations Not Affected: The power to grant variances does not extend to the use regulations prescribed for each district because the flexibility necessary to avoid results inconsistent with the objectives of this title is provided by chapter 16, "Conditional Use Permits'; and by section 12-3-7. "Amendment" of this title. 12-17-6: CRITERIA AND FINDINGS: A. Factors Enumerated: Before acting on a variance application, the planning and environmental commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested variance: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. • 3 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed • variance. VI. SITE ANALYSIS Zone District: Single Family Residential (SFR) Address: 1462 Aspen Grove Lane Legal Description: Lot 11, Block 2, Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing 4 Lot Size: 67, 213 square feet / 1.543 acres Hazards: Medium Severity Rockfall Standard Allowed/Required Existing Proposed Setbacks: Front: 20 ft. 5' 4' Sides: 15 ft. 103' / 145' 90' / no change Rear: 15 ft. 74' no change Height: 33' 33' no change GRFA: 11,194 sq ft 4,894 sq ft 5,086 sq ft Site Coverage: 20% 4% (2,938 sq ft) 4.7% (3,178 sq ft) Landscape Area: 60% (40,328 sq ft) 95% (64,275 sq ft) 95.2% (64,035 sq ft) • Parking: 2 spaces 2 spaces 3 spaces VII. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Land Use Zoninq North: Residential Single Family Residential (SFR) South: Open Space Natural Area Preservation (NAP) East: Residential Single Family Residential (SFR) West: Residential Single Family Residential (SFR) VIII. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS A. 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Staff has determined the requested variance will result in a harmonious relationship between the existing structure and the neighboring buildings as the bulk and mass will increase only slightly. The proposed addition will benefit neighboring properties as it will allow the applicant to enclose a motorcycle and trailer, as opposed to leaving it exposed to plain view on the side of the existing garage. Additionally, pursuant to Section 12-7-1 ,a practical difficulty and unnecessary physical hardship exists due to the location of the existing structure on the site. Staff believes the applicant has met the intent of this criterion with their proposal. • 4 C7 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without a grant of special privilege. Considering the preexisting, legal nonconforming status of 'the subject structure and the previous variance request granted by the Eagle County Planning Commission, staff does believe relief from the strict and literal interpretation of the specified regulation is warranted. The applicant is asking for the minimum amount of relief from the development standards of the Single Family Residential (SFR) zone district to achieve their goal and no grant of special privilege will result in the approval of the applicant's request. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Staff believes the effects upon light, air, and other public interests in comparison to existing conditions would be negligible considering the small addition proposed on this building. The existing building is currently nonconforming with respect to the required minimum front setback of twenty • feet (20') given the level of encroachment will increase by one foot (1'). The building's height will remain the same and the addition will not impact any of the elements contemplated in this criterion 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. Staff believes the proposed variance will have a positive effect on the subject propertys aesthetic values and will therefore benefit the neighborhood as a whole. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: • 5 a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified • regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same mne. c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested variance from Sections 12-6B-6, Setbacks, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a residential addition, located at 1462 Aspen Grove Lane/Lot 11, Block 2, Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing 4, subject to the criteria outlined in Section VIII of this memorandum. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose approve to the requested variances, the Department of Community Development recommends the Commission pass the following motion: "Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section Vlll of this memorandum, and the • evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or irrprovements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions orextraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. • 6 • X. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Reduced Plans C. Applicant's Request C C7 e C I I I ~' _ ,,.~-. T~_...~,r~_~ ~ - ~-.. - - - ~- ~~,- - r - - -- - - - _ - `3~.~,~:;~~=' ~' ~_ ~-~=~ _ - - = ~..:>~ -;nom. . ~ ' ~~• ~~~~~ _~ ~;,~t - ~ ,F >~~. ~F~~~~~ ~ ~ ~"~ ,~~ Attachment: B w ~ ~,- a ~ ~4~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~. ,f~ -.~.~y'~.x ~ -x 5~c ~a hb..ty .-a~~- ~r ~ a~,..`9-v 'F~ j ,' ~-ti '.. ~ - _ ` - -~i"~+. - .cry "r~'~. ~T _•F ~, ~F•J ~.~'• $-'°'~ _ _ - \ - \\ L4 ~1 - 4~' ~,+y3,' _ ~-_~~ _ ~` ~'." '".'T tom- '~ i4 ~ 1 V. I - n c ~.s~„7; 1 ~ ~~ ~ ~ .~ _ ( j - -. ~ fix,- '~`' "~-- - I-. n; ~ I ~. v ~ - * ~ f .. -\' ~ - ~ '~-t - -- ' 4 - _.~' ~ 1 • 1 ,~nl AFL ~~or. .s~ 4 v 0 :~ 2 N A ° O ~ m °n, ~': o~ z n z 4 9t4 ~~a 1 'a ~~' 4 fi "°~ i 2 ~$ , ~' 1 ' 4 9 9C n r~u~$ 4 T~ A ~6. 'fig G e~~. ~ n 9 fq 1 ~ ~.~- ~ ~ c+ ~ ~'ot ~~ s ~~J T' y ~ r 4 yF `ti 7.$l \ ~~~ 'q: ~,1 c8~ ~ ~k£J v "~ n s rn -a r+p 3p c~~2~~0 e ~. ~~~ ~'~Vr =',~ -°'~aak~~ 6 ~,C ¢s4~ n fir, c,~ ., €~*~` ;qqs~~~°g~°,~ , .#^i-3~3°~~f} GN ~ fie ^~'~~~ ` ~~e~ ~ c~ .,. ~~°54r~ ;yqr ~ t~ ! a~s ,Y g~:;g ~~i ~ ~z ~~~ d > O .N ~~ ~ ~ a m Y K O_ ~ -- o F i -o~ ~~ ~ ~ >" S„ gi y~9~R ~y ¢ ¢ a Rp 3 B 9 R~' ~GP ~~¢ C ~'~ F`~ p S a " % 0 ~ ~ ~ R i ~ ~~g gg ~ '~L ~a~p~g,.~96§ ¢Rpx ~' qa4 ~~ ~3 33 ~. R~ ~J~~g~,„-qq~g ~~. ~ n q~ ~B ~ F g a~ ~ 5` `~ Se ~ R ~ R a -'_ - -O ~t ~_~ +_- ~.srl ~ ; i ~ - ~,` ~ <~:,' 4 --~- ~~ -~ ~~ 8 f ,'y~~°, i ~wv~ogG~~& r. / 8£. ;~P^` ~~ "~ so: `, a 0 €~ :~.= ~ ~~~ ~ n~ G s. • I• ii i 1TIl~ ~ + i ~~ I i j ' ~ 111111~~, ~ ~S ~ ~ r ~' 1 ~ ~ I ~~] ~ ~~ - ~'' ~; D~ ~~ ~ , I i ~ ma - ~ °° ,~ ,;~ i is ~ - - .~ ~ ~ ago ~i© .~~. ' ~ I _ \ f ®ae~F fl ~ ~?~ ~~ p ~ ~ ~~sr sa .. ' a•r .. m ~ ~ ~~ Z _ it_ ~ ----- -. - -;, m I .~ _ i p n ;I _ z ' ~r~-Y f ~. C. ~~ oln ~ o- ~ ~~e ~~ \P b- ~~~ 3 ~ L~~I~ ` ~ ~ yy 1 1 1 ~Y~ ~O L Y ~ • ~ ~ ~,j:~#. 'n _ .cam. r~~ t ~ i,.~ ~~. ~ s ~'•~ ~- I 1 ~ 5 ® -- ;; ; o b- °, '~, ~ Z ~ < ~ I~(=~0 ~ ~ ', ~'~ ~, b ~ ~ /~ 3 ~ ~~ ~. ~ , l~ I ~' I ~ I ~ ~ , '- L_ Q F7 ~< ~ ~I .a o ~ ..a ~+ 'tom 1 ': _ _{ ~t n~4 __ -.__ I , It ~ ~ ~ --fill-- ~I .ca ~n~ -B~yj ~ J ®9 ~i~I~~:~~f~~SD6~D[~~F~DD D © Dx VII ~.Z) f[ ~ ~~ ~~P ~ ~~ ~~ r ~ F°.i~ 6 g •r ~• ~~ •~ sate ~ I~ P S 20 F l ~S9 c~~a ~~':`a ~ ~ ~ ~u~ Ei 4 ~ ~ ~°~ ~ _~_ ~$°• S ~( o c1~ ~e [ ~ ~_ F~ ~~~~r~ "~I i ~ ~gr w D ~rlI~ ~I 63 art) f~~ ~ ~ ,~ o" GIY'9U~ 9 iiNii-~~ '11 a~M, ~ fFO ~ ~n~ ka~;T. qs EA~ Q~ ti }L ~}t ,~ "~~. ~~ t. ~n 6 ~~np I~~~yrt ~[is~= § ~ 9<~~~ ~~-. rr;, ~ ~ '1 °9" i~ i r~ r~ c~ ~~r! a p Of 19~ i~ ~, ,2~ ~ ~ F ~C i;f~?s~. ~ s i, t n~ ~r . ~6 0 _.>3 ~_~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ I o,~ t ~ E7.' ~ ,w I. T - i ~ ~ i ~ r ~ ~ ' I o~w ~ ' ~, ~ i ~ ~ i I i ~ --r - - - - i ~ Vii.-~_~ li.w 44 " ~ ~m m ,,,~~ a " ~ n ~. i \ T N ~ 1 ~ i \ ~1- ` \~ n _] ( 1 I .. ._ - _ - © _ r-.y Z ~-___.,.____ _ 8 ~ ~~ i~ Z< ~~ ~{ ~ G,; d ' ~~ ~~ ~~ 2~ 9 ^ '~ A ~f ,i I 6I M 6 w sl : :. = 3 ~ v ~ a vl i rl n ~ IC I i r a ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ F S kp p i ~ ~ € ~ S 6 ~ a ? ~ VV P? D i ~ ~ R s q _ € p I UUa Y Y . I ' ~ • o • ~ ~ ? O • ~ ~ a d n ~ w i s a aR i ~ x ~ k M i g ' ~ !, . ~ ~ ~s S ~ a a a d d d i d :, 8 a ~ & ~ _ ~~ -. y ~. c. - - - - - 1 >.,sb 1 © yl a I] ~R~{6~ 5 ~ F f~6r ~.elb ;_~~ ~ 4 Z ~~f ~ O s~cZ i ...r„ ~ ~~~~ .a„ a ^A ~d~~'' I, F~° ~ ~ w ; L ~[a I ..w n ~~ II~"~ 1-15 ~: '~ O _. pi t~, old t~ t; rI FBI ~,, hi it v o ~ a °i ~) ~i ~• 8 ~a'~d~'~; ~ ~~-,, . a.i • ~: :.~+ : ~. : ~ ~I n 1~ ~ ~ S~ RI f ~f #[ ~~ ~I ~ _I-~F ~~. ,, ,~,~_ ~I - .,EEC, ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ , d~alo~oi.o;die e~dle~e~~~ ._. _.y . -- --- '.~ .. _, ~ , , >,: , ., r~~~~r~~~~~,t~ 6~~ ~ ,i~~ ~ I~~~ ~ ' '~;~ ~ alp ~ t~~ $' e~ ~ '~~ ~ Air ii ~ ~ ~ ~. ~, s I~ CIF i aIa i ~ if i i. € . Ip; ~I• I -~_ - sii ~ ; ~i- r~~~ ~ r '~ _ ~ _ ~~j ~_ 8~bi ii~~i i4 _ ; h R.X h ~_ '. } bf 3 _~.. _~. ~ p a i O 5 ~ ~ ~= ~° ° ~ ~ i. ~ i -~a~ - - "~ R ~ ; , ~' ~ ' b E.__ .~ 'i y 1 ~ - i , I ' o i i a; i0 8i.~ + ~~c n~`1k •' sn • i _ ~~ ~1$ D i• • ~~ i J ~d Zw ED `~ r I ~I ~ _ ~ - - -- - - - ~ _- ___ ~---- _ - -- ~ s~ ~ ~ iy- - _ __ -_ o 11 r -_J P _ - 1 - - _~ ~ _ _._ ~ ~` _ ,._ n C --1 _-----~- ~_=- ,,, ,, _ , k---- --_ !~ _ J, ~ ~ ~. _ ~ _ 1:~ ~e ~ ~11 ((cc ~a ~"6 ~c a~ ~7p O0 6 ~ a ~ o° ~ ~` i z 9 r P 5T 1 , ~~ - A~~ - _T ~I = _-~ p -~ I ~ a ~" i "fin ~ ~ a ~} y< gy F, 1 ~I ~8 ~A T S" ~ S a ~[~~ ~~ °6 ~x D ~~ ~~ ~ i ~- 7~- ~1' ~ ~ R g m5aaati11~6F6::d~'19JdRdR~I)~ ?IOpOr ~~pv ~ 9;~P ~ p PP~Z-~€~g M v ~_ '~Qn ." ..e ~ +~ ~D ~~ F~ ma o s. ~~ • a ~ ~ 2. l® ; 8 p~ ~ ` 4 3 ~ • ~ 3 Y s ~'\\, ys~ m m 1 ~~I r ~ ~ v ~ ._ ~.~ ,~ i 1 • '~~ ~~ ~ a t z c~ ~~ y~~ ~~. z~ -- ~---~_ ' M _r _-~ 1 _- - ~ ' jet '- ~. ',, ;, ~~- ~`ti '' ~~ , y .' e ~n - - .~~1 ~ ~~ a n l ~- ~~;" i'ii'`,` _~~'/`, ~:? s ~ ~' ` ~ -= ,. t4 ~' ~ ~~' ~ ,,,~j~; ,~~ J i~ i 11 ' it + '4 ',', ~,,1 ,, . •a s$ ~ ~~. ~~ 1 4 '~~ Attachment: C • April 24, 2006 Matt Gennett Town of Va i I Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 John M. Perkins, AIA 0047 E. Beaver Creek Blvd. Christie Lodge Resort, Suiie C-16 P.O. Box 2007 Avon, Colorado 81620 970.949.9322 fax 970.949.0629 Re: Variance Application for Review by the Planning and Environmental Commission -Lot 11, Blk. 2, Flg. 4 Lion's Ridge Subdivision - 1462 Aspen Grove Lane Dear Matt, Please note the attached application for variance. The Gobecs have met with you and George Ruther on separate occasions regarding their hopes of adding A third garage bay. The request is as follows: The specific variance requested is relief from the front setback regulation 12-B-6 (20 feet) for the additional third garage bay. The current garage, built under Eagle County regulations, varies from 16' to 5' from the front (north} property line. The site has a "saddle" topographic feature that falls steeply to the south. The topography and the existing configuration of the existing structure create practical difficulty in adding the garage bay. A written statement addressing the following: a. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity is compatible with the residential neighborhood of Aspen Grove Lane. A three car garage is a highly desirable amenity in this high end area as it will remove one vehicle from being parked in front of the current two car garage. Page Two April 24, 2006 Matt Gennette b. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the front yard setback regulation is necessary is substantial. The subject property was allowed to build the existing two (2) car garage within 5'-0" from the front (north) property line in 1981 under Eagle County zoning. It is presumed that a front setback variance must have been granted at that time. The new garage bay proposed will offset from the northeast corner 3'-6" and extend easterly for 12'. The resultant new corner will be approximately 5'-0" from the north property line. This is the only location and strategy for the additional garage bay. JMP Architects, Inc. c. The granting of the requested variance will have no effect on light and air, distribution of population, transportation, traffic facilities, utilities and public safety. • d. The request complies with adopted Town of Vail planning policies and development objectives in that it removes one vehicle from the streetscape as viewed by adjacent properties. ~; . If you request any additional information, please don't hesitate to call me at 949-9322. Thank you for your consideration. Re ctfully submitt ohn M. Perkins AIA jmp/kk MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 12, 2006 SUBJECT: A request for a worksession to discuss proposed amendments to Chapters 12-21, Hazard Regulations, 14-7, Geologic/Environmental Hazards, and 14-10, Design Review Standards and Guidelines, Vail Town Code, to adopt Wildfire Regulations and a Wildfire Hazard Map that will require mitigation of high and extreme wildfire hazard zones in the Town of Vail, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06~ 0029) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Rachel Friede I. SUMMARY The applicant, the Town of Vail, is requesting a worksession to discuss proposed amendments to Chapters 12-21, Hazard Regulations, 14-7, Geologic/Environmental • Hazards, and 14-10, Design Review Standards and Guidelines, Vail Town Code, to adopt Wildfire Regulations and a Wildfire Hazard Map that will require mitigation of high and extreme wildfire hazard zones in the Town of Vail. Town Staff has requested this worksession in order to provide additional information regarding fire science, the Wildfire Hazard Map as well as the proposed text amendments. Since this is a worksession, Staff requests the Planning and Environmental Commission listen to the brief presentation and ask any questions related to the proposed Wildfire Regulations. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The danger of wildfire in Vail has been a pressing issue for many years. There are the intertwined issues of pine beetle infestation, drought, and an increase in development adjacent to Forest Service properties. The Town has worked with partners including the Forest Service and Eagle County to mitigate wildfire risk at the perimeter of the Town by conducting controlled burns. This perimeter would potentially stop fire from traveling from the forest to homes as well as the greater risk from homes to the forest. However, this action is not enough to reduce the risk of wildfire having devastating effects on the Town. In order to protect citizens and their property, it is necessary to mitigate hazards on private property, not only on public land bordering Forest Service property. The need for Wildfire Regulations has been realized in communities throughout the country, and now the Town has realized that we must legislate mitigation. Over the past year, Town Departments including Fire, Planning, Building, and Environment Health have been • collaborating on the development of Wildfire Regulations in order to reduce the risk of destruction of property and spreading wildfires. The purpose of this worksession is to provide the PEC a strong understanding of the science behind the Town's effort to enact Wildfire Regulations. First, the Town's Wildfire Mitigation Specialist, Tom Talbot, will give a presentation on FireWise and general fire science. Next, the Town's GIS technician, Sean Koenig, will team with the County's Wildfire Mitigation Specialist in order to explain the methodology of the Town of Vail Wildfire Hazard Map (See Attachment A for the map, Attachment B for the methodology explanation). Last, Staff will review the proposed Wildfire Regulation text amendments. The proposed text amendments will: • Add a wildfire hazard Section to the Town's existing Hazard Regulations • Adopt a Wildfire Hazard Map as part of the Town of Vail Master Hazard Map • Outline the triggers for complying with the regulations • Require asite-specific investigation of properties in the high and extreme wildfire hazard zones conducted by the Town's Wildfire Mitigation Specialist utilizing the NFPA 1144 form (See Attachment C) • Require a mitigation plan for properties receiving asite-specific wildfire hazard rating of high or extreme that will reduce the wildfire hazard rating to moderate risk or less • Require Class A noncombustible roofing materials in the high and extreme wildfire hazard zones Since this is a worksession, Staff asks that the Planning and Environmental Commission listen to the presentation and ask any questions about the Wildfire Regulations. Staff also asks that the Planning and Environmental Commission table this item for further review at its June 26, 2006 public hearing. BACKGROUND • In 2004, Eagle County hired Dynamac Corporation to conduct the Eagle County Wildland Fire Hazard Assessment and Mapping. The result was the Eagle County Wildfire Regulations (See Attachment D). Since then, the Town has teamed with the County to create our own Wildfire Regulations. The Town has also teamed with the Forest Service on wildfire mitigation projects as part of the Vail Valley Forest Health Initiative. This includes numerous controlled burns throughout the Town in order to mitigate wildfire hazard on the municipality level. The controlled burns create a buffer between the Forest Service properties and Town land. These controlled burns have occurred at Booth Creek, the Upper Bench of Donovan Park and at The Falls Condominiums. The Fire Department also leads a public information campaign and offers free wildfire hazard evaluations for any property in Town. However, these projects alone cannot stop the serious threat of wildfires. Since last year, the Town of Vail Fire, Planning, Building, Public Works and the Environment Health Departments have been collaborating on the development of Wildfire Regulations. Staff has been working on these regulations as one part of the solution to potential wildfires. Staff feels the public will benefit from these proposed regulations, as the regulations will increase awareness of wildfire hazards and provide methods to mitigate these hazards. IV. ROLES OF REVIEWING BODIES • Order of Review: The Planning and Environmental Commission review text amendment applications and forwards a recommendation to the Town Council. The Town Council will then review the text amendment application. • Planning and Environmental Commission: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for the review of a text amendment application, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, and forwarding of a recommendation to the Vail Town Council. Design Review Board: The Design Review Board has no review authority over a text amendment to the Vail Town Code. However, since the Wildfire Regulations may affect the way the Design Review Board reviews applications, Town Staff will make a presentation to the Design Review Board to keep them informed of potential changes. Town Council: The Vail Town Council is responsible for final approval, approval with modifications, or denial of a text amendment application, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code. The Vail Town Council has the authority to hear and decide appeals from any decision, determination, or interpretation by the Planning and Environmental Commission and/or Design Review Board. The Vail Town Council may also call up a decision of the Planning and Environmental Commission and/or Design Review Board. Staff: The Town Staff facilitates the application review process. Staff reviews the submitted application materials for completeness and general compliance with the appropriate requirements of the Town Code. Staff also provides the Planning and Environmental • Commission with a memorandum containing a description and background of the application; an evaluation of the application concerning the criteria and findings outlined by the Vail Town Code; and a recommendation of approval, approval with modifications, or denial. V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Town of Vail Zonino Reoulations (Title 12. Vail Town Code) Chapter 12-1: Title, Purpose and Applicability 12-1-2: Purpose A. General: These regulations are enacted for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town, and to promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that will conserve and enhance its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of high quality. 12-3: Administration and Enforcement 12-3-7: AMENDMENT.• C. Criteria And Findings: 2. Prescribed Regulations Amendment: a. Factors, Enumerated: Before acting on an application for an amendment to the regulations prescribed in this Title, the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested text amendment: • (1) The extent to which the text amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the zoning regulations; and (2) The extent to which the text amendment would better implement and better achieve the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town; and (3) The extent fo which the text amendment demonstrates how conditions have substantially changed since the adoption of the subject regulation and how the existing regulation is no longer appropriate or is inapplicable; and (4) The extent to which the text amendment provides a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal development objectives; and (5) Such other factors and criteria the Commission and/or Council deem applicable to the proposed text amendment. Town of Vail Development Standards Handbook (Title 14. Vail Town Code Chapter 14-1: Administration 14-1-1: Purpose and Intent: It is the purpose of these rules, regulations, and standards to ensure the general health, safety, and welfare of the community. These rules, regulations, and standards are intended to ensure safe and efficient development within the town for pedestrians, vehicular traffic, emergency response traffic, and the community at large. The development standards will help protect property values, ensure the aesthetic quality of the community and ensure adequate development of property within the Town. VI. PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS TITLE 12: ZONING REGULATIONS • Chapter 12-21: Hazard Regulations 12-21-1: PURPOSE: The purpose of this Chapter is to help protect the inhabitants of the Town from dangers relating to development of flood plains, avalanche paths, steep slopes, wildfire and geologically sensitive areas; to regulate the use of land areas which maybe subject to flooding and avalanche or which maybe geologically sensitive; and further to regulate development on steep slopes; to protect the economic and property values of the Town, to protect the aesthetic and recreational values and natural resources of the Town, which are sometimes associated with flood plains, avalanche areas and areas of geological sensitivity and slopes; to minimize damage to public facilities and utilities and minimize the need for relief in cleanup operations; to give notice to the public of certain areas within the Town where flood plains, avalanche areas, wildfire hazards and areas of geologic sensitivity exist; and to promote the general public health, safety and welfare. 12-21-2: DEFINITIONS: WILDFIRE HAZARD RATING, GENERAL: The relative degree of hazard associated with wildfire potential. The hazard rating will be determined based upon slope, aspect, fuel rank and disturbance regime, and will be represented through a hazard rating of low, moderate, high or extreme. • The hazard rating will be incorporated into the Town of Vail Wildfire Hazard Map. WILDFIRE HAZARD RATING, SITE SPECIFIC: The degree of site specific • hazard associated with wildfire potential, determined by subdivision design, vegetation, topography, roofing material, building material, available fire protection, utilities and special rating factors (proximity to other structures or extreme topographical features) that is applicable to each respective site. Site-specific wildfire hazard ratings shall be determined through the NFPA 1144 form, or the most recently updated version of this form. WILDFIRE R/SK INVESTIGATION: A detailed analysis of a lot conducted or reviewed by the Administrator that assesses the site-specific wildfire hazard rating. The Wildfire Risk Investigation shall include a complete NFPA 1144 form, or the most recently updated version of this form as well as a mitigation plan. 12-21-3: MASTER HAZARD PLANS: The Town Manager shall formulate and develop~master hazard plans for the Town. Said hazard plans shall be based on engineering studies and shall indicate the location of known flood plains, avalanche and geological hazard zones of influence, - az= `tl-CTf'3 ~ s; wildfire hazards, and forty percent (40%) slope areas. In addition, the plans may show any other information or data deemed to be desirable by the Town Manager. Maximum citizen participation during the formulation of the master hazard plans as well as other phases of the information implementation of the hazard studies and regulations shall be encouraged. The purpose of the master hazard plans is fo identify and alleviate present and future problems created by • the construction of improvements in the hazard areas within the Town by means of presenting in an orderly fashion the general data and information which are essential to the understanding of the relationship between the hazards and improvements located within said areas. The master hazard plans maybe altered from time to time to conform with new information or existing conditions. 12-21-16: REQUIREMENTS IN SPECIFIC WILDFIRE HAZARD ZONES: A. Maps Adopted: The Wildfire Hazard Map, dated June 12, 2006, is hereby adopted as the official map of the Town identifying areas of potential wildfire risk. B. Restrictions in High and Extreme Wildfire Hazard Zones: 1. Roofing Materials: Structures within High or Extreme Wildfire Hazard Zones, as designated by the Town of Vail Official Wildfire Hazard Map, shall be required to utilize Class A noncombustible assembly and roofing materials, as defined by the Town's adopted Building Code. Nonconforming structures shall be required to meet the requirements of this Subsection upon application for a re-roof. 2. Additional Mitigation: a. Trigger For Regulations: Any lot partially or wholly within the high or extreme wildfire hazard risk zone by the Town of Vail Official Wildfire Map, no initial application that includes new construction, a residential . addition, commercial addition of over one thousand (1000) square feet, or an increase in the number of dwelling units, accommodation units or fractional fee units shall be approved until a site specific Wildfire Risk Investigation is submitted, as outlined in Subsection 12-21-16B-2a. Certificates of Occupancy shall not be issued until all required wildbre hazard mitigation occurs. From the effective date of June 12, 2006, there shall be permitted aone-time exclusion from this provision for an expansion to residential dwelling units. This one-time exclusion shall be allowed for a single expansion of five hundred (500) square feet or less of allowable GRFA or garage area credit per dwelling unit. In which case, structures maybe expanded without requiring upgrades to entire structures and sites to conform with this Section. The addition itself, however, shall conform with the design guidelines. An expansion that is greater than five hundred (500) square feet, or any subsequent expansion to a structure, regardless of size, shall require full compliance of the dwelling unit with this Section. b. All properties partially or wholly within the high or extreme wildbre hazard zones shall be required to submit a Wildfire Risk Investigation at the time of application, to be conducted by the Administrator. The Wildfire Risk Investigation shall include a site specific Wildfire Hazard Rating, as determined by the NFPA 1144 form, as well as a mitigation plan that will bring the property's wildfire hazard rating down to a moderate or low rating. Properties that are determined to have asite-specibc wildbre hazard rating of moderate or low shall be exempt from any further mitigation. Applicanfs shall be required to mitigate the wildfire hazard as outlined in the Wildbre Risk Investigation until the property can receive a rating of moderate or low wildbre hazard risk through the NFPA 1144 form. 12-21-1 ~7: RIGHT OF APPEAL: 12-21-1-~8: REQUIREMENT OF BOND: TITLE 14: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS HANDBOOK Chapter 7: Geologic/Environmental Hazards Table 7: Geologic Hazards See hazard maps for the following hazards. Snow Avalanche Debris Flow Rock Fall Unstable Soils or Slopes High or Extreme Wildfire Risk Geologic Hazards Submittal Requirements See Section 12-21 of the Zoning Regulations for detailed requirements. Submit a site specific study with DRB or PEC application. Submit site specific study with building permit application or with DRB application ifmulti-family or commercial. Submit site specific study with building permit application or with DRB application ifmulti-family or commercial. Submit site specific study with building permit application or with DRB application ifmulti-family or commercial. Submit site specibc study with DRB or PEC application. Other Requirements: Nonconforming Sites Nonconforming sites, structures, uses, and site improvements lawfully established prior to the effective date of adoption of these standards may continue, subject to the limitations prescribed by Chapter 18 and Chapter 21, Title 12, of the Zoning Regulations. No existing nonconforming site or structure • • C] shall be issued a building permit for an exterior expansion, alteration or addition • in a geologically sensitive area except for windows, skylights and other similar minor alterations unless allowed by a site specific hazard study in accordance with Chapter 21, Title 12. Replacement of roofing materials must be in compliance with requirements of Section 12-21-16 related to high or extreme wildfire risk areas. Hazard Maps The following is a list of hazard maps officially adopted by the Town of Vail: 1. Debris Flow and Debris Avalanche Hazard Analysis Map prepared by Arthur 1. Mears, P.E., Inc. and dated November, 1984. 2. Rockfall Map prepared by Schmueser and Associates, Inc. and dated November 29, 1984. 3. Geological Hazard Map, Figure 3, prepared by Lincoln DeVore Engineers, Geologists and dated August 16, 1982. 4. Wildfire Hazard Map, created by the Town of Vail, dated June 12, 2006. Chapter 10: Design Review Standards and Guidelines. 8. Site Planning: 3. Removal of trees, shrubs, and other native vegetation shall be limited to removal of those essential for development of the site,-ex' those identified as diseased or any plant removal related to creating defensible space, as determined by Staff. • D. Building Materials and Design: 1. Predominantly natural building materials shall be used within the Town of Vail. The exterior use of wood, wood siding, wood shingles, native stone, brick, concrete, stucco, and EIFS maybe permitted. Concrete sun`aces, when permitted, shall be Treated with texture and color; however, exposed aggregate is more acceptable than raw concrete. The exterior use of stucco or EIFS with gross textures or surface features that appear to imitate other materials shall not be permitted. The exterior use of simulated stone or simulated brick shall not be permitted. The exterior use of aluminum, steel, plastic, or vinyl siding that appears to imitate other materials shall not be permitted. The exterior use of plywood siding shall not be permitted. All building materials shall comply with the regulations in Chapter 12-21 and the adopted building code. 4. The majority of roof forms within Vail are gable roofs with a pitch of at least four feet (4) in twelve feet (12'). However, other roof forms are allowed. Consideration of environmental and climatic determinants such as snow shedding, drainage, fire safety and solar exposure should be integral to the roof design. G. Landscaping, Drainage, and Erosion Control: 1. A recommended list of plant materials, some indigenous to the Vail area, is on file with the Department of Community Development. Also indicated on the list are FireWise plants er~amentals-which are suitable for planting within the Vail area. A general list of FireWise plants is outlined in the latest version of Colorado State Forest Service publication #6.305, "FireWise Plant • Materials." The minimum sizes of landscape materials acceptable are as follows: VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION • Staff recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission listen to the presentation, ask any pertinent questions and table this item to its June 26, 2006 public hearing. VIII. ATTACHMENTS A. Proposed Town of Vail Wildfire Hazard Map B. Methodology Report on Town of Vail Wildfire Hazard Map C. NFPA 1144 Form D. Eagle County Wildfire Regulations E. Colorado State Forest Service publication #6.305, "FireWise Plant Materials." C7 • e ~ Attachment B PEC 6/12/06 • Town of Vail Wildland Fire Hazard Mapping Basic Mapping Methodology The Dynamac Corporation performed a wildland fire hazard assessment and mapping program for Eagle County in 2003. A final wildland fire hazard map was submitted in December 2003 while the wildland fire hazard report was submitted in January 2004. Wildland Fire Fuels Mapping Wildland fire fuels were mapped from USGS Digital Ortho Quarter Quads (DOQQs) and classified using the National Forest Fire Laboratory (NFFL) system of describing Fire Behavior Fuel Models (FBFMs) (Anderson 1982) which is a nationally recognized standard of classification. The FBFMs mapped for Eagle County include fuel models for grass, grass/shrub, tall shrub, pinon/juniper, conifer or conifer/hardwood with light litter, and conifer with heavy litter. A custom fuel model, developed by the Forest Service for the White River National Forest Fire (WRNF) Behavior Prediction System (FBPS), was used to attribute mapped hardwood stands of aspen. Field ground-truthing (i.e. after photography is used to determine and delineate the fuels composition, locations are visited and examined in order to double-check and confirm . initial analysis) of fire behavior fuel models was conducted on 48 of the total of 247 map tiles (approximately 19%) mapped under this wildland fire hazard assessment program. Discussions with Eagle County Fire and Emergency and Disaster Service personnel identified areas most critical for hazard assessment. These areas were the focus of the ground-truthing and included the Town of Vail. The resulting GIS data layer ("fbfm~oly") provides an exhaustive FBFM coverage for incorporated and unincorporated areas of Eagle County and is the basis for subsequent data layers critical to the creation of the fire hazard-rating index. The FBFMs are mapped beyond private and County owned lands, extending approximately 200 meters into public lands. The data item FBFM in the GIS data set contains the wildland fire fuel attribute. Fire Hazard A wildland fire hazard-rating index was calculated using the Colorado Wildland Urban Interface Hazard Assessment Methodology (Edel 2002). The hazard index is derived from a weighted combination of fuel hazard rank, disturbance regime, and slope and aspect classes, resulting in a wildland fire hazard rating of very low, low, moderate, high, and extreme. Ranked values for fuel hazard and disturbance regime are assigned based upon Gap Analysis Program (GAP) vegetation codes (relating directly to the Colorado • State Forest Service methodology for determining wildland fire hazard). Fuel hazard represents a qualitative ranking based on flammability during an average burning day. Attachment B PEC 6/12/06 Disturbance regime is also a qualitative ranking based on the average length of the return • interval (Edel 2002), essentially describing the amount of time required for a specific fuel _ type to regenerate. The Eagle County FBFM map was translated into fuel hazard and disturbance rank as shown in the Table 1. Table 1 -Fuel Hazard and Disturbance Rank, Eagle County, CO GAP V egetation ~ FBFM ~ Fuel Disturb ance Code Description Rank Hazard Rank Hazard Foothill and Mountain 31040 Grasslands 1 1 low 4 short 32002 Xeric Upland Shrub 2 2 moderate 4 short ~ 32006 Mountain Big Sagebrush 2 2 moderate 4 short Wyoming Big 32007 Sagebrush Steppe 2 2 moderate 4 short Big Sagebrush 32009 Shrubland 2 2 moderate 4 short. ~ 32003 Deciduous Oak 4 4 very high 4 short ~ 42015 Juniper Woodland 6 3 high 3 medium ~ 43000 Mixed Forest 8 2 moderate 4 short ~ 42001 Spruce-fir ~ 10 3 high 1 ~ very long ~ ~ 42003 Douglas Fir 10 3 high 3 ~ medium ~ 42004 Lodgepole Pine 10 3 high 2 ~ long ~ 42018 Mixed Conifer 10 3 ~ high 3 ~ medium 41001 Aspen Forest 28 1 ~ low 3 ~ medium ~ ~ 11001 Human Settlement 99 0 ~ none 0 ~ n/a 21002 Irrigated Crop 99 1 ~ low 4 short ~ ~ 52001 + Open Water + 99 0 ~ none 0 n/a ~ Forest-Dominated 61001 Wetland/Riparian 99 1 I low 3 medium Shrub-Dominated 62001 WetlandlRiparian I 99 2 moderate 4 short 70000 Barren Land ~ 99 0 none 1 0 ~ n/a ~ ~ 74001 Exposed Rock ~ 99 0 none 0 ~ n/a ~ 75001 ~ Mining Operations ~ 99 0 none + 0 ~ n/a The wildland fire fuels polygon coverage was converted to grid cell format with a cell size of 90 feet using the data item for fuel hazard and disturbance regimes in two separate operations to produce a fuel hazard grid and disturbance regime grid, respectively. Slope and aspect were calculated from a 30-meter digital elevation model (DEM) for Eagle County. The DEM was obtained by Eagle County from the National Elevation Dataset (NED). The slope grid was converted to integer values and reclassified into four slope percent classes of 0-5%, 6-20%, 21-40%, and greater than 40%. The aspect grid was converted to integer values and reclassified into four aspect classes as described in • Table 2. ~ Attachment B • Table 2 -Slope As Aspect (degrees) 0-160, 201-360 ~ 161-165, 19b-200 166-175, 186-195 ~ 176-185 PEC 6/12/06 pect Classes, Eagle County, CO. Class 1 2 3 ~ 4 The Town of Vail's methodology differed slightly from Eagle County's in the following manner: Rather than using the 90-feet cell size fuel hazard and disturbance regime grids, a higher resolution (10-meter cell size) fuel hazard grid ("fhzrd 10") and disturbance regime grid ("dstrb_10") were used. But aside from output grid cell size, the methodology behind the creation of these data layers is identical since the wildland fire fuels polygon coverage ("fbfm~oly") provides an exhaustive and highly accurate FBFM coverage for incorporated and unincorporated areas of Eagle County. Additionally, slope and aspect were calculated from a 10-meter digital elevation model (DEM) for Vail. The same slope and aspect classes (ranges 1-4) were applied to input into the overlay formula. The four grids (disturbance regime, fuel hazard, aspect class, and slope class) where combined though map algebra using the following formula: HAZARD = ~DISTURBANCE_RANK~xO.3S + ~FUEL_RANK1xO.4O + ~ASPECT_CLASS1xO.lO + ~SLOPE_CLASS1xO.tS Values for the above formula can range from 0 to 4 in areas where fuels were mapped; 0 being the lowest hazard and 4 being the highest.. Values greater than 4 occur in areas where fuels were not mapped, and were therefore not included in the hazard rating. The values in the resulting hazard grid were multiplied by a factor of 100 and converted from floating point values (i.e. numbers including decimal values) to integer values (i.e. whole numbers). The integer values were then reclassified into six categories as follows: 0-99 as 9 (very low hazard in areas mapped FBFM 99), 100-174 as 1 (low), 175-249 as 2 (moderate), 250-324 as 3 (high), 325-400 as 4 (extreme) and 401-7569 as 0 (not mapped). The categories of low through extreme provide spatially explicit information of relative wildland fire hazard across mapped portions of the county. The wildland fire hazard ratings for Eagle County reveal that approximately 13% of the mapped areas are very low hazard, less than 1 % is mapped as low hazard, 18% is moderate hazard, and 6% is extreme hazard. Meanwhile, 63% of the Eagle County lands mapped as part of this assessment can be designated high wildland fire hazard areas which can be characterized as mostly uplands dominated by grass [either cured or dead] and low shrubs; additionally, upland areas dominated by open and closed canopy conifer forests received the high hazard ratings. Of the approximately 26001ots in the Town of Vail, 1524 lots, or about 58%, are partially or wholly within high or extreme hazard zones. Of those, only six lots are at • least partially in the extreme hazard zone. Attachment B PEC 6/12/06 f Data Resolution Review of the fire hazard ratings by Eagle County personnel revealed that some very localized hazards were not being detected. A comparison between models using 30- meter and 10-meter DEMs showed that the increase in data resolution did little for improving the detection of these fine-scale terrain features. Additionally, 10-meter DEMs was not available for all areas across Eagle County at the time of the study. However, the availability of 10-meter DEMs covering the geographic extent of the town of Vail enabled the creation of a more fine-scale and accurate model due to the use of this higher resolution data. References Anderson, H.A. 1982. Aids to Determining Fuel Models for Estimating Fire Behavior. General Technical Report INT-122, USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT. Colorado State Forest Service. 2001. Report to the Governor, Colorado's Wildland Urban Interface. • Edel, Skip. 2002. Colorado Wildland Urban Interface Hazard Assessment Methodology. Colorado State Forest Service. National Fire Protection Agency. 2002. Standard for Protection of Life and Property from Wildfire, NFPA 1144, 2002 Edition. National Fire Protection Agency, Inc., Quincy, MA. National Wildfire Coordinating Group. 2002. Gaining an Understanding of the National Fire Dancer Rating Svstem.. National Wildfire Coordinating Group. 1999. Establishing Fire Prevention Education Cooperative Programs and Partnerships. National Academy of Public Administration. 2002. Wildfire Suppression Strategies For Containing Costs. Jack D. Cohen. No Date. Wildland-Urban Fire - A Different Approach. U.S. Forest Service, Fire Laboratory research paper: Dynamac Corporation, Wheat Ridge, CO. 2003. Eagle County Wildland Fire Hazard Assessment and Mapping Report. • Attachment C ~NFPA 1144 Wildland Fire Risk and Hazard Severity Form* • • • Parcel ID: Address: Lat: Long: Date: 1. In ress and E ress a. Two or more roads in/out 0 b. One road in/out 7 2.Road Width _ a. >_24 ft 0 b. >_20 ft and < 24 ft 2 c. < 20 ft 4 3. All-Season Road Condition a. Surfaced road, grade < 5% 0 b. Surfaced road, grade > 5% 2 c. Non-surfaced road, grade < 5% 2 d. Non-surfaced road, grade > 5% 5 e. Other then all-season 7 _ 4. Fire Service Access a. <_300 ft with turnaround 0 b. > 300 ft with turnaround 2 c. < 300 ft with no turnaround 4 d. >_300 ft with no turnaround 5 5. Street Si ns a. Present (4" in size and reflectorized) 0 b. Not resent ~i IF 5 on eta 1. Ve station Characteristics within 3 00 ft a. Light (Fuel Models 1 & 2) 5 b. Medium (Fuel Models 4, 6, 8 & 28) 10 c. Heavy (Fuel Model 10) 20 d. Slash 25 2. Defensible S ace a. More than 100 ft of vegetation treatment from structure(s) 1 ~ b. 71 to 100 ft of vegetation treatment from structure(s) 3 ~ c. 30 to 70 ft of vegetation treatment from structure(s) 10 ~ d. Less than 30 ft of vegetation treatment from structures 25 1. Slope <_9% 1 2. Slope 10% to 20% 4 3. Slope 21 % to 30% 7 4. Slope 31 % to 40% 8 5. Slope >_41 % 10 PEC 6/12/06 Comments Place a number from 0-5 in the appropriate yellow box 1. Topographical features that adversely affect wildland fire behavior 0-5 ~ 2. Separation of adjacent structure that ~ can contribute to fire spread 0-5 ~ fi n 1. Construction Material a. Class A roof 0 ~ b. Class B roof 3 ~ c. Class C roof 15 d. Not rated 25 1. Predominate Materials a. Non-combustive/fire resistive siding, eaves, & deck b. Non-combustive/fire resistive siding, eaves, & combustive deck c. Combustive siding & deck 0 5 10 ~ a. >_30 ft to slope 1 b. < 30 ft to slope 5 pr 1. Water Source Availabilit a. Pressurized water source 500 gpm, hydrants <_1,000 ft apart 0 250 gpm, h~rdrants <1,000 ft apart 1 b. Nonpressurized water source 500 gpm, continuous for 2 hours 3 250 gpm, continuous for 2 hours 5 c. Water unavailable 10 2. Or anized Re onse Resources a. Station <_5 miles from structure 1 b. Station > 5 miles from structure 3 1. Both underground 0 ~2. One underground, one aboveground 3 3. Both above round 5 1. Low hazard, < 25 points 2. Moderate hazard, 25 to 54 points 3. High hazard, 55 to 97 points 4. Extreme hazard, > 97 points 0 Attachment D • r 1 L J WILDFIRE REGULATIONS APPROVED 12/20/02 ADOPTED 1/21/03 EFFECTIVE 4/21/03 SECTION 2-110. DEFINITIONS LOCAL FIRE AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION means the agency, special district or municipality responsible for responding to fire related emergencies. For land located outside of the boundaries of a municipality or special district established for fire protection, the County Sheriff or his assigns is responsible for responding to fire related emergencies. WILDFIRE HAZARD MAP means a current, scaled, graphic compilation of predetermined wildfire hazard ratings for each and all privately owned lands and adjacent public lands located within unincorporated Eagle County. The resulting map reflects the most accurate, currently available site specific data. Wildfire hazard ratings will change over time due to site-specific modifications of fuels and water supply. As such, the Wildfire Hazard Map will be continually modified in order to accurately reflect current conditions. WILDFIRE HAZARD RATING means the relative degree of site-specific hazard associated with wildfire potential. All privately owned land and adjacent public lands, having wildfire influence on the subject property, located within unincorporated Eagle County will be assigned a hazard rating. The hazard rating will be determined based upon three criteria: 1) Topography; 2) Fuel, and; 3) Water availability. Each of these three criteria is assigned a numerical value reflective of actual site conditions. The three resulting numerical values, when tallied, represent the hazard rating of low, moderate, high or extreme. The hazard rating will be incorporated into the Wildfire Hazard Map. WILDLAND/URBAN INTERFACE means any area where man-made structures are built close to, or within, terrain and fuel or other conditions where the potential for wildfires exist. SECTION 4-430. DEVELOPMENT IN AREAS SUBJECT TO WILDFIRE HAZARDS A. Purpose. There are certain regions of Eagle County that have the potential to pose hazards to human life and safety and to property because they can be threatened by wildfire. These regulations are intended to provide standards to reduce or minimize the potential impacts of wildfire hazards on properties, the occupants of properties and the occupants of adjacent properties, as well as to facilitate access to manmade structures by firefighters in the event of a wildfire. Development should attempt to avoid high and extreme wildfire hazard areas whenever possible. B. Applicability. The provisions of this Section shall apply to any application for a Special Use Permit, Subdivision or Planned Unit Development (PUD). C. Vegetation Management Plan. All applications identified in Section 4-430.B, Annlicability, shall include a Vegetation Management Plan. The Vegetation Management Plan shall be prepared by a natural resource professional with expertise in the field of vegetation management and wildfire mitigation. 1. Special Use Applications. For development requiring a Special Use Permit, the application shall include those materials described under Subsection 4-430.C.2.b, Preliminary Plan. 2. Development Involving Subdivision or PUD Review. a. Sketch Plan. The Vegetation Management Plan submitted with the sketch plan shall provide an initial site-specific evaluation. Following is the minimum information to be included in the plan: . (1) A statement of objectives for the Vegetation Management Plan; (2) Asite-specific wildfire analysis addressing topographic and vegetation features; • (3) A vegetation inventory, analysis and map which identifies and assesses the major timber stands and vegetation according to National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Bulletin Number 299, Standard for Protection of Life and Property from Wildfire,1997 Edition or, the version of the referenced publication currently in effect. b. Preliminary Plan. The Vegetation Management Plan submitted with the preliminary plan shall provide a detailed site specific analysis which includes the following minimum information; (1) A schedule delineating how the wildfire mitigation actions identified in the plan will be implemented including, but not limited to, overlot vegetation thinning, creation of fuelbreaks and the installation of working fire hydrants, fire cisterns and or/dry hydrants prior to the introduction of combustible construction materials on the site; (2) Communication capabilities during construction with the Local Fire Authority Having Jurisdiction and the type of communication system. A physical address is required for E-91 ]purposes; (3) Detailed specif-cation of fire protection equipment and emergency preparedness actions to be installed or implemented and maintained within the subdivision during construction; (4) Detailed mitigation actions including, but not limited to, thinning and removal of trees and vegetation designed to mitigate wildfire hazard areas. The use of building envelopes may be required to locate structures outside of severe hazard areas, off of steep slopes and outside of draws and canyons; (5) Identification of the entities responsible for implementing the plan, constructing • required improvements, and maintenance in perpetuity of the improvements and appropriate easements, if any; (6) A map identifying major timber stands and vegetation, locations of fire hydrants, water tanks, cisterns and/or dry hydrants, as well as locations and flows or capacity of fire hydrants, water tanks, cisterns and/or dry hydrants. D. Procedure. 1. Referral to Colorado State Forest Service. As part of the review of the application, the Community Development Director shall refer to the Colorado State Forest Service (CSFS) all applications as identified in Section 4-430.B., Applicability. Referral of Final Plat applications will be at the discretion of the Community Development Director. Review and Classification of Degree of Hazard By CSFS. CSFS reviews the application and determines whether there is a low, moderate, high, or extreme degree of severity of wildfire hazard posed to persons and property pursuant to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Bulletin Number 299, Standard for Protection of Life and Property from Wildfire, 1997 Edition or, the version of the referenced publication currently in effect. CSFS considers the Vegetation Management Plan, Defensible Space and proposed design of the subdivision or PUD (including the planned roads and water supply facilities and the configuration and location of lots), the topography of the site, the types and density of vegetation present, the fire protection measures proposed by the applicant and other related factors in making its determination. 3. CSFS Response. Considering the degree of severity of wildfire hazard that is posed to persons and property, the CSFS shall also comment on the potential effectiveness of the Vegetation Management Plan and the mitigation techniques proposed. These recommendations shall be based on guidelines promulgated by CSFS (see, for example, "Creating Wildfire-Defensible Zones, No. 6.302 or currently accepted standards.) and may include, but are not limited to the following • wildfire hazard mitigation techniques: a. Locations. Recommendations to locate structures outside of severe hazard areas, off of steep slopes and outside of draws and canyons. b. Manipulate Vegetation. Recommendations to manipulate the density and form of vegetation, so as to create defensible space buffers around locations where structures are proposed including: Removal of tree limbs hanging near chimneys, establishing fuelbreaks, reduction of on-site vegetative fuel hazards through strategic thinning and clearing to promote overall health of on-site vegetation by reducing the severity of the hazard. The form and the extent of the recommendations to manipulate vegetation shall relate directly to the severity of the hazard that is present. c. Building Design. Recommendations to use fire rated or non-combustible roof materials, to require pitched roofs, and to sheath, enclose or screen projections and openings above and below the roofline, as applicable. Compliance with these recommendations shall occur prior to building permit issuance pursuant to Chapter 3.10, Buildine Resolution of the Eagle County Land Use Regulation. d. Water Supply. Where access to a pressurized water system with fire hydrants is not provided, recommendations may be made to ensure the availability of a water supply for individual structures, in the form of access to a pond, installation of an underground water storage tank, provision for dry hydrants, or similar methods. e. Access. Recommendations to provide separate routes of entrance and exit into the subdivision or PUD, to lay out roads so as to create fuel breaks and to ensure the adequacy of access by emergency vehicles, including the provision of regularly spaced turnouts along roadways, the establishment of adequate grades and sight distances and • the prohibition of dead end streets (but not cul de sacs) in the development. Depending upon the length of the road, fire hazard rating, number of units proposed, topography and the recommendation of the Local Fire Authority Having Jurisdiction, the Board of County Commissioners may, at their discretion, grant a variance from the required improvement standard. f. Maintenance. Recommendations to keep roofs cleared of debris and to store flammable materials and firewood away from structures. Firebreaks, turnaround areas and emergency access routes shall be maintained. 4. Compliance The County shall consider the recommendations of the CSFS and apply the appropriate recommendations as conditions of approval of the sketch and preliminary plan. The applicant shall demonstrate how the development complies with all of the CSFS recommendations made conditions of approval by the County. E. Standards. 1. Water Supply and Access. The following standards for water supply and access shall apply to all applications as identified in Section 4-430.B., Anolicability. a. Water Supply. (1) Fire Hydrants. (a) Fire hydrants shall be provided when a water distribution system will serve the proposed development and shall meet the required fire flow as defined in the fire code in effect at the time of application or as otherwise determined by the Local Fire Authority Having Jurisdiction. • (b) The water distribution system shall be capable of delivering the required fire flow for each hydrant connected to the distribution system within the proposed subdivision as delineated in the fire code in effect at the time of application, or as otherwise required by the Local Fire Authority Having Jurisdiction. (c) Fire hydrants shall be located at the intervals defined in the fire code in effect at the time of application, and shall be located so that all structures are within a maximum five hundred (500) feet as defined in the fire code in effect at the time of application or as otherwise determined by the Local Fire Authority Having Jurisdiction. (d) Fire hydrants shall be located in the public right-of--way or at other }ocations as required and approved by the Local Fire Authority Having Jurisdiction. (e) Fire hydrants shall be accessible to fire fighting apparatus from County maintained roads, privately maintained roads or unobstructed emergency vehicle lanes as determined by the Local Fire Authority Having Jurisdiction. (2) Water tanks, cisterns and/or dry hydrants. Water tanks, cisterns and/or dry hydrants shall be provided in developments that are not served by hydrants unless the Local Fire Authority Having Jurisdiction has approved an alternative fire protection water supply system. (a) Water tanks and cisterns shall meet the requirements of the /997 . Uniform Fire Code as adopted by Eagle County, or as defined in the fire code in effect at the time of application. Depending upon the recommendation of the Local Fire Authority Having Jurisdiction, the Board of County Commissioners may, at their discretion, grant a variance from the required improvement standard. (b) A dedicated turn-around shall be placed no more than fifty (50) feet from a water tank or dry hydrant cistern and the discharge from the water tank or dry hydrant cistern shall be within eight (8) feet of the nearest usable portion of the dedicated right-of--way, unless otherwise approved by the Local Fire Authority Having Jurisdiction. (c) Dry hydrants may be provided in combination with or in lieu of cisterns, water tanks or other approved fire protection water supply systems. Dry hydrants shall be installed in accordance with the standards of NFPA Bulletin Number 1142, Suburban and Rural Fire Fighting 2401 Edition or, the version of the referenced publication currently in effect. The Local Fire Authority Having Jurisdiction may approve an alternative standard. An average home size of 5000 square feet shall be assumed unless further modified within the development. b. Access. Separate routes of entrance and exit into the development shall be provided. Roads shall be laid out with consideration for creating fuel breaks and to ensure the adequacy of access by emergency vehicles, including the provision of regularly spaced turnouts along roadways, the establishment of adequate grades and sight distances and the prohibition of dead end streets (but not cul de sacs) in the development. Reference ROADWAY STANDARDS Section 4-620.D.9.a and Section 4-620.J.1.h. Depending • upon the length of the road, fire hazard rating, number of units proposed, topography and the recommendation of the Local Fire Authority Having Jurisdiction, the Board of County Commissioners may, at their discretion, grant a variance from the required improvement standard. SECTION 4-620. ROADWAY STANDARDS Note: Due to the length of the ROADWAYSTANDARDSseccion ojthe LUR, only those portions proposed for amendment have been included in this draft. (Section 4-620.D.9.a) D. Functional Classifications By County. In addition to the road classifications under ISTEA, Eagle County classifies other roads in the county as Major and Minor Collector Roads, both Rural and Urban, due to their functional characteristics as defined by AASHTO. The user of these Improvement Standards may, therefore, find a dual classification for some Eagle County roads. For administrative and design purposes, roads shall be classified as shown in Classification of Roads in Eagle County. The current classification is attached hereto as Appendix C and will be replaced as the County Engineer amends the classification from time-to-time. Roads within the jurisdiction of unincorporated Eagle County are classified as follows: 9. Cul-De-Sacs and Turnarounds. Cul-de-sacs and turnarounds serve dead end residential roads or streets that do not exceed one-thousand (1,000) feet in length. a. Maximum Number of Dwelling Units Served. Due to mountainous terrain, it may be • necessary to have dead end roads which exceed 1,000 feet in length. In such instances, emergency vehicle turnaround areas shall be provided at the initial 1000 foot mark and at 1000 foot intervals for the remaining length of the road. The Local Fire Authority Having Jurisdiction may approve an alternative spacing plan for turnaround areas. The turnaround shall be constructed in accordance with Section 4-620.D.9.c, Cul-de-sacs and Turnarounds, Preferred Design,, or as otherwise approved by the Local Fire Authority Having Jurisdiction. (Section 4-620.D.9.c) 9. Cul-De-Sacs and Turnarounds. Cul-de-sacs and turnarounds serve dead end residential roads or streets that do not exceed one thousand (1,000) feet in length. c. Preferred Design. Circular offset cul-de-sacs are preferred, as illustrated in Exhibit 5-8 of A POLICY ON GEOMETRIC DESIGN OF HIGHWAYS AND STREETS, 200 I , published by AASHTO. Cul-de-sacs may also terminate in a "T" or "L" as illustrated in the above-referenced Exhibit 5-8. (Section 4-620.J.1.h) Geometric Standards. All roads within unincorporated Eagle County, whether publicly or privately maintained, shall conform to the design standards and requirements shown in Table 4-620.J., Summary Of Environmental. Geometric And Design Standards. 1. Horizontal Alignment. The following special considerations for horizontal alignment shall apply to the design and construction or reconstruction of roadways in Eagle County: • h. Dual Access. The applicant shall provide two (2) points of access from the proposed development to the public roadway system, unless prevented by topography or other physical conditions. In any event there shall be a usable and unobstructed (with the exception of breakaway barriers) secondary emergency point of ingress/egress for all new development or redevelopment capable of accommodating emergency response vehicles commonly operated by the Local Fire Authority Having Jurisdiction. All dwellings and other structures shall be accessible by emergency and service vehicles. Depending upon the length of the road, fire hazard rating, number of units proposed, topography and the recommendation of the Local Fire Authority Having Jurisdiction, the Board of County Commissioners may, at their discretion, grant a variance from the required improvement standard. (4-620.J.9.c.(1) c. Additional County Standards. In addition to the foregoing, public and private access approaches and driveways shall be subject to the following standards: (1) Access By Emergency and Service Vehicle. All dwellings and other structures shall be accessible by emergency and service vehicles. A maximum grade of eight (8) percent and a minimum centerline radius of forty-five (45) feet is recommended for driveways on north-facing slopes. On south-facing slopes, a maximum grade often (10) percent and a minimum centerline radius of forty-five (45) feet is recommended. Curves should be widened generously in both circumstances. Public and private access approaches and driveways in excess of 150 feet in length shall be • provided with adequate area for emergency vehicle turnaround. The turnaround shall be constructed in accordance with Section 4-620.D.9.c, Cul-de-sacs and Turnarounds, Preferred Desien or, as otherwise approved by the Local Fire Authority Having Jurisdiction. SECTION 4-680. WATER SUPPLY STANDARDS (4-680.B) B. Fire Fighting Facilities. The developer shall provide fire hydrants, water tanks, cisterns and/or dry hydrants within the development capable of providing a fire fighting water supply. Such hydrants, water tanks, cisterns and/or dry hydrants shall be of the type, size and number, and shall be installed in locations as specified in Section 4.430.E.1.a, Water Sunnly of these Land Use Regulations, or as may be alternatively approved by the Local Fire Authority Having Jurisdiction. SECTION 5-240. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) DISTRICT Note: Due to the length of the PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT section ojtl:e LUR, only those portions proposed jor amendment have been included in this draj[: (5-240.F.2.a) F. Procedure. 2. Sketch Plan for PUD. • • a. Initiation. Applications for development permits for a Sketch Plan for PUD may be submitted at any time to the Community Development Director by the owner, or any other person having a recognizable interest in the land for which the Sketch Plan for PUD is proposed, or their authorized agent. The application shall contain the materials specified in Section 5-210.D.2, Minimum Contents of Annlication, and the following information: (1) Reasons PUD procedure is more desirable than conventional plan. (2) Proposed land uses, commercial, industrial and multi-family building locations, residential densities, and commercial square footage. (3) Proposed vehicle circulation pattern indicating the status of street ownership. (4) Proposed pedestrian circulation, and links to other external path systems. (5) Proposed open space. (6) Proposed grading and drainage pattern. (7) Proposed method of water supply and sewage disposal. (8). Proposed PUD Guide setting forth the proposed land use restrictions. (9) Wildlife Analysis pursuant to Section 4-410. (10) Geologic Hazards Analysis pursuant to Section 4-420. (11) Ridgeline Visual Analysis pursuant to Section 4-450. (12) Conceptual Landscape Plan pursuant to Section 4-220. (13) Environmental Impact Report pursuant to Section 4-460. (14) Vegetation Management Plan pursuant to Section 4-430. (15) Any or all of the following requirements, as determined by the Community Development Director, based on the complexity of the proposal: (a) supporting data to justify any proposed commercial and industrial elements in an area not so zoned; (b) proposed schedule of development phasing; (c) statement as to the impact of the proposed PUD upon the County school system; (d) statement of estimated demands for County services; (e) statement of projected County tax revenue based upon the 7 previous year's County tax levy and a schedule of projected receipts of that revenue; (f) conceptual site plans, and conceptual architectural plans; (g7 proposed method of fire protection; (h) Employee housing plan. (5-240.F.3.a) F. Procedure. 3. Preliminary Plan for PUD. a. Application Contents. An application for a Preliminary Plan for PUD shall contain the materials specified in Section 5-210.D.2, Minimum Contents of Apnlication, and the following information: (1) Overall development plan. (2) Application for zone amendment. (3) PUD guide setting forth the proposed land use restrictions and standards of development. (4) Wildlife Analysis pursuant to Section 4-410. (5) Geologic Hazards Analysis pursuant to Section 4-420. (6) Ridgeline Visual Analysis pursuant to Section 4-450. (7) Detailed Landscape Plan pursuant to Section 4-220. (8) Environmental Impact Report pursuant to Section 4-460. (9) Vegetation Management Plan pursuant to Section 4-430. (10) Any other information required with Sketch Plan approval. SECTION 5-280. SUBDIVISION Note: Due to the length ojthe SUBDIVISION section of the LUR, only tl:ose portions proposed for amendment have been included in this draft. (5-280.B.4. a.(2).(v).dd.) B. Procedures. 4. Preliminary Plan for Subdivision. a. Application Contents. An application for a Preliminary Plan for Subdivision shall • • 8 contain the materials specified in Section 5-210.D.2, Minimum Contents of Annlication, and the following information: (2) The following maps and information shall be required and shall conform to the format and inclusions which follow: (v) Preliminary Utility Plan, pursuant to Section 4-670, 4-680 and 4-690, on a plan supplemental to and at the same scale as the Preliminary Plan, to include the following: dd. Fire Protection The developer shall provide fire hydrants, water tanks, cisterns and/or dry hydrants within the development capable of providing a fire fighting water supply. Such hydrants and/or cisterns shall be of the type, size and number and shall be installed in locations as specified in Section 4.430.E.1.a, Water Sunnly of these Land Use Regulations, or as may be alternatively approved by the Local Fire Authority Having Jurisdiction. (x) Vegetation Management Plan pursuant to Section 4-430. Chapter lII -Eagle County Building Resolution • 3.13.1 -GENERAL 3.13.1.1 Purpose. The purpose of this regulation is to establish minimum design and construction standards for the protection of life and property from fire within the Wildland/LJrban Interface. These provisions are meant to aid in the prevention and suppression of fires, lessen the hazards to structures from wildland fires and lessen the hazards to wildlands from structure fires. 3.13.1.2 Applicability. These wildfire regulations are applicable to all new construction in the unincorporated territories of Eagle County and shall supercede the provisions of any previously approved Planned Unit Development, which may contain language contradictory in nature to the intent of these regulations. In the event that a previously approved Planned Unit Development contains language, which is more restrictive than the language found in these regulations then, the more restrictive language shall apply. 3.13.1.2.a All new building construction, exterior modification to existing buildings, and/or additions that increase an existing building's footprint or number of stories in moderate, high and extreme hazard zones shall cause the entire building to comply with the provisions of this regulation with regard to the creation of Defensible Space. Pursuant to Section 3.13.4.5 Roofine or Sidine of Existine Buildings of this Resolution, re-roofing permits will not require Defensible Space. Only exterior modifications to existing buildings shall comply with the provisions of this regulation with regard to fire resistive construction. Buildings or structures that do not require a building permit are exempt from this regulation, although their proximity to a permitted structure may modify the requirement for defensible space on the property. 3.13.1.2.b All Communities and/or Subdivisions in existence prior to the effective date of these wildfire regulations may opt to prepare a Comprehensive Wildfire Mitigation Plan, which includes all lands and buildings within a definitive boundary delineated by said Plan. The Comprehensive Wildfire Mitigation Plan will be evaluated and may be approved at the sole discretion of the Board . of County Commissioners through application for a Special Use Permit pursuant to Chapter 2, • Article 5 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. The Board will render their decision based upon recommendations from the Planning Commission, the Colorado State Forest Service, the Local Fire Authority Having Jurisdiction and any other applicable federal, state or local authority or agency. If the Special Use Permit for the Comprehensive Wildfire Mitigation Plan is approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners, then the land area defined within the Plan will not be required to conform to this Chapter III with regard to wildfire mitigation. Rather, the land area defined within the Plan will be bound via Board of County Commissioner Resolution for the Special Use Permit to fully implement the elements of the Comprehensive Wildfire Mitigation Plan within a time frame established by the Board of County Commissioners through the Special Use Permit. The Comprehensive Wildfire Mitigation Plan shall remain in full force and effect and all wildfire mitigation measures established within the Plan shall be maintained in perpetuity, unless otherwise amended by the Board of County Commissioners. The County shall be authorized to set limits on the length of any Special Use Permit that it issues and to obtain assurances that the ongoing operation of the use will comply with all of the applicant's representations and all conditions of approval, including, but not limited to, requiring an annual compliance review. All conditions imposed in any Special Use Permit shall be expressly set forth in the resolution approving the Special Use Permit. Revocation or suspension of a Special Use Permit issued pursuant to these Land Use Regulations shall be made under the procedures and standards of Article 7 of these Land Use Regulations, upon a finding that the Special Use Permit was issued on the basis of erroneous or misleading information or representation, the development violates the terms or conditions of any permit issued pursuant to these Land Use Regulations, the terms or conditions of the Special Use Permit • or these Land Use Regulations. 3.13.1.2.c All Communities and/or Subdivisions in existence prior to the effective date of these wildfire regulations opting to submit a Comprehensive Wildfire Mitigation Plan must have the plan prepared by a natural resource professional with expertise in the field of vegetation management and wildfire mitigation. Variable topography, diverse natural vegetative cover, as well as, unique access and water supply characteristics typify each existing development in Eagle County. It is therefore imperative that a plan be designed specifically for the community or subdivision seeking special consideration. The plan shall contain strategies to implement wildfire mitigation measures that will provide equal, if not superior, protection from the hazards inherent to wildfire. The plan may include but not be limited to: Strategic vegetation management incorporating the creation of strategic fire breaks in common areas, along access routes and subdivision perimeter and on each privately owned property; Creation of Defensible Space around all existing structures within the boundaries of the Comprehensive Wildfire Mitigation Plan; Removal of dead and diseased trees, clean-up and maintenance of under- story growth and ground debris within common areas and on each privately owned property; Provision of or improvement of an existing fire fighting water supply; Community/subdivision ingress/egress and individual driveway improvements designed to accommodate adequate emergency vehicle access and turnaround areas; Create at least two usable points of ingress/egress to the community/subdivision; Provision of adequate road and address signage; Inclusion of new technology designed to mitigate wildfire hazards such as fire retardant foam or gel applications, and; Retrofit existing structures with fire resistive construction materials, particularly, fire resistive deck and roofing materials. The Board may also consider pre-existing wildfire mitigation measures. 3.13.2 -DEFINITIONS For the purpose of this regulation, certain terms are defined as follows: COMPREHENSIVE WILDFIRE MITIGATION PLAN means an exhaustive, substantive compilation of • 10 commonly accepted practices designed to substantially decrease the hazards to life, property and the natural - environment caused by wildfire. DEFENSIBLE SPACE is a designated area surrounding a building or buildings that will be subject to fuel modification measures intended to reduce fire-spread potential between the structure and adjacent vegetation. FIRE HYDRANT means a valved connection on a piped water supply system having one or more outlets that is used to supply hose and fire pumpers with water as approved by the Local Fire Authority Having Jurisdiction. FIRE-RESISTIVE CONSTRUCTION means afire-resistive shell- exterior walls shall be a listed, one-hour fire- resistive assembly or log (6" min. dia.), and the roof shall be protected by a layer of 5/8" type X gypsum board interior ceiling or nominal 2"x T&G wood interior ceiling. Anon-combustible exterior wall surface (cement stucco, brick, stone, cement fiber siding) may be used in lieu of the exterior membrane of a listed wall assembly. Decks shall be one-hour fire resistive construction as defined in the building code in effect at the time of building permit application. TREE CROWN is the needle or leaf bearing part of a tree. The crown edge is the tree's drip edge. 3.13.3 -PROCEDURE 3.13.3.1 Hazard Rating Assignment Prior to the approval of a building permit applicable to these regulations, a Wildfire Hazard Rating must be determined for the subject property. The rating will determine the level of mitigation required for construction. 3.13.3.1.a Wildfire Hazard Rating, CSFS. Pursuant to Section 4-430.D.1 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, plans for subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments or Special Use Permits in Eagle • County are referred to the Colorado State Forest Service. The CSFS reviews the application and determines a wildfire hazard rating of low, moderate, high or extreme for the project. 3.13.3.1.b Wildfire Hazard Rating, Not Assigned. A wildfire hazard rating must be obtained on properties for which the Colorado State Forest Service has not assigned a wildfire hazard rating. Eagle County Community Development Staff, the Local Fire Authority Having Jurisdiction or the Colorado State Forest Service, using identical criteria, will determine site- specific wildfire hazard ratings. 3.13.3.2 Inspection The level and type of Wildfire Hazard mitigation shall be determined by Eagle County Community Development Staff at the time of building permit plan check. During construction, the following site inspections shall be required. 3.13.3.2.a Initial site inspections. Two (2) inspections shall be required prior to the issuance of a building permit. A wildfire hazard rating for the property must be available. Prior to the initial inspection being scheduled, the footprint of the proposed structure must be staked out on the ground. The first inspection shall establish the defensible space, identify trees and shrubs to be removed or pruned and list other mitigation measures to be performed within the defensible space. The second inspection shall be made to verify that defensible space mitigations identified during the first inspection have been completed. 3.13.3.2.b Final Site Inspection. A final inspection to verify that all required mitigations have been completed or properly utilized shall be conducted prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (TCO) for the structure. 3.13.4 -REQUIRED MITIGATION 3.13.4.1 Defensible Space Vegetation Management Zones. Defensible Space shall extend the distances specified I1 in Table A (a minimum 70 feet for flat lots), or to the property lines, whichever is less. Defensible space measurements shall commence from the building plane, and follow all projections and recessions on each side of the building. A defensible space required under these provisions shall also encompass, and extend from, all buildings on the property located within a 50-foot radius'of the affected building. Within the Defensible Space identified through application of Table A, the following mitigation shall be provided (Reference Figure 1): 3.13.4.1.a Zone 1: Is the area of maximum modification and treatment. The intent of Zone 1 is to reduce fuels that are immediately adjacent to flammable elements of the structure and to provide a clear access area for fire fighting operations. Zone 1 is an area measured 15 feet from the edges of the structure. Ideally, all trees within Zone 1 should be removed to reduce the fire hazard. If a tree or cluster of trees must remain, it will be considered as an integral part of the structure and Defensible Space pursuant to Table A will be measured from the drip line of the tree or tree cluster. This is particularly important if the building is sided with wood or other flammable materials. Decorative rock or irrigated, mowed grass creates an attractive, easily maintained nonflammable ground cover. If the house has noncombustible siding, widely spaced foundation plantings of low growing shrubs or other fire resistant plants are acceptable (Reference CSFS Publication 6.305, Firewise Plant Materials or, the version of this publication currently in effect.). Frequent pruning and maintenance of plants in this zone is necessary. All dead branches, stems and leaves must be regularly removed. All trees within Zone 1 must be pruned to at least 10 feet above the ground, but no more than 1/3 the overall height of the tree (Aspen trees, individual spruce, fir and pine specimens are exempt). All branches that interfere with the structure's roof or chimney must be removed. All ladder fuels (small shrubs, trees, tree limbs and other materials that allow fire to climb into the tree crown) must be removed from beneath the tree or tree cluster. 3.13.4.1.b Zone 2: Is an area of fuel reduction. It is a transitional area between Zones 1 and 3. The size of Zone 2 depends on the slope of the ground where the structure is built (Reference Table A). Within this zone, the continuity and arrangement of vegetation is modified to reduce the intensity of any fire approaching the structure. Trees and shrubs must be thinned so that there is a minimum of 10 feet between crowns. Crown separation is measured from the furthest branch of one tree to the nearest branch on the next tree. All ladder fuels from under these trees must be removed. All trees must be pruned to at least 10 feet above the ground, but no more than 1/3 the overall height of the tree (Aspen trees, individual spruce, fir and pine specimens are exempt). Zone 2 forms an aesthetic buffer and provides a transition between zones; therefore, it is necessary to blend the requirements for Zones I and 3. The inner portions of Zone 2 must be more heavily thinned than the outer portions. Tree density may increase as Zone 2 approaches Zone 3. Isolated shrubs may remain provided they are not under tree crowns. These shrubs must be pruned and maintained for vigorous growth. Dead stems and shrubs must be removed. No more than 2 dead trees per acre should remain for wildlife habitat. Dead trees, which can fall onto a structure or block an access, must be removed. 3.13.4.1.c Zone 3: Is an area of traditional forest management and is of no particular size. Zone 3 extends from the edge of Zone 2 to the property boundaries. Typical management objectives for Zone 3 are: To provide optimum recreational opportunities; enhance aesthetics; maintain tree health and vigor; provide barriers for wind, noise, dust and visual intrusions. Specific thinning requirements are dictated by the property owner's objectives, however, most thinning will be done leaving the biggest and best trees and on an individual tree basis. Thinning sanitizes and improves the forest stand by removing trees that are damaged, attacked by insects, infected by disease or are of poor form or low vigor. 12 ul 4n c 10 _O ~l ~ 10 Uphill (and side) Distance to home Table A: This chart indicates the minimum dimensions for defensible space from the home to the outer edee of Zone 2. Zone3 ,~~~~~ i j Zone2 i J 1 t 1 -"' PropertyUnes ~~ X ~ ~/, x, ~~ f I I 1 ~'' I 1 ,:~.:. I .> CK~~: ~ ~ 1 ~~-~~ Zone 1 Figure is Pronertv showine the three fire defensible zones around a home or other structure. 3.13.4.2 Construction. The following construction specific requirements shall be enforced based on a site's assigned Hazard Rating. The establishment of a Defensible Space shall be required in moderate, high and extreme hazard areas in accordance with the requirements of this regulation and Table A. 3.13.4.2.a Low Hazard Construction. No additional construction mitigation measures required. 3.13.4.2.b Moderate Hazard Construction. Structures located within a Moderate Wildfire Hazard area shall be required to implement Defensible Space pursuant to Table A. All roofs shall be class A • or class B as defined in the building code in effect at the time of building permit application. Decks shall be of fire resistive construction. Vents for roof ventilation shall not be in the horizontal soffit. 3.13.4.2.c High Hazard Construction. Structures located within High Wildfire Hazard areas shall be required to implement Defensible Space pursuant to Table A and shall incorporate fire-resistive construction as defined in this regulation. All roofs shall be class A as defined in the building code in effect at the time of building permit application. Decks, eaves and soffits shall be of fire resistive construction. Vents for roof ventilation shall not be in the horizontal soffit. 3.13.4.2.d Extreme Hazard Construction. Site and construction-specific requirements for structures proposed in areas that have been assigned an Extreme Wildfire Hazard rating shall be determined by the department of Community Development and the Local Fire Authority Having Jurisdiction on a case by case basis. The extreme rating may be downgraded through implementation of various vegetation management techniques designed to mitigate the overall wildfire hazard present on the site and/or by providing a reliable year-round source of water for fire fighting purposes. Fire hydrant(s) must conform with the requirements of the fire code in effect at the time of application or, as otherwise determined by the Local Fire Authority Having Jurisdiction. Water tanks, cisterns and/or dry hydrants shall meet the requirements of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Bulletin Number 1142, Suburban and Rural Fire Fighting, 2001 Edition or, the edition of the referenced publication currently in effect. The Local Fire Authority Having Jurisdiction may approve an alternative standard. 3.13.4.3 Additions. Additions requiring a building permit in moderate, high or extreme hazard areas will require that Defensible Space be developed around the addition as well as the existing structure in accordance with the requirements of this regulation and Table A. Construction of the addition shall be in accordance with the requirements of Section 3.13.4.2 of this regulation. 3.13.4.4 Exterior Decks. Exterior decks requiring a building permit will require that Defensible Space be developed around the deck as well as the existing structure in accordance with the requirements of this regulation 13 ?q 90 go tno ItG I2G 13G 146 tG0 ITO t90 210 C7 and Table A and shall also be constructed in a manner consistent with this regulation per the fire hazard rating assigned to the property. 3.13.4.5 Roofing or Siding of Existing Buildings. When re-siding or re-roofing an existing building requires a building permit, materials and construction shall comply with this regulation based on the fire hazard rating assigned to the property. Defensible Space will not be required for re-siding or re-roofing an existing building. TABLE 3 Amendment of Permit Fees UBC Table 1-A-Building Permit Fees Additional permit fees shall be charged as follows: 1. Reinspection fees assessed under provisions of Section 108.8 .....................................................................................$100.00 (per violation). 2. For moving or demolishing any building or structure ....................................................................................$47.00 (per inspection). For Factory Built, Manufactured Housing/Mobile Home Base Fee Cost: Single Wide Unit 2 field inspections and ]hour plan review time............$127.50 Double Wide Unit 3 field inspections and 2 hour plan review time............$212.50 Note: The above includes Plumbing and Mechanical inspections without separate permitting. Note: All additional inspections will be $47.00 each. Examples: Footing, Foundation (other than Bloclc/Pads), reinspection and any and all inspections performed on a basement. 4. For site inspection and review of a plot to evaluate potential locations for an individual subsurface or private sewage disposal system, per lot or test site (does not include percolation test) ..................................................................................$85.00 ** See Resolution No. 80-11, 1980 -Local Board of Health Eagle county Individual Sewage Disposal Regulations. For site inspection including percolation test and soil profile observation (Per visit) ...........................................................................$200.00 For review and completion of a Federal Housing Administration questionnaire with respect to a dwelling to be sold, including site inspection of a water supply and sewage disposal system and water supply evaluation including water well construction comments. .......................................................................................... $200.00 For reinspection of improperly installed septic systems.........$47.00 Additional inspections for which collected fees are not adequate $47.00 per hour. Requests for specialized reports will be charged $47.00 hourly with a'/z hour minimum. 10. Per Eagle County Building Resolution Section 3.05, if the building card becomes lost or unreadable, there will be a $20.00 fee to update or replace the card. 14 • 11. Fire Sprinkler systems and Fire Alarm Systems. Permit fees shall be based on the valuation of the systems equipment and installation or the cost per square foot taken from the Building Valuation Data sheet, Building Standards Magazine, published by the International Conference of Building Officials. Plus an additiona165% for plan review. 12. Elevator Permit fees shall be paid to the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments. For permit applications and to schedule inspections, contact Elevator Inspection Program at (970)468-0295 Ext. 108. 13. Replacement of roof for single-family structure is $47.00. 14. Grading permit fees and plan review fees, per tables A-33-A and A-33-B of the 1997 UBC. 15. For Wildland Hazard Mitigation inspections: Three (3) field inspections and One (1) hour plan review time $200.00 Note: All additional inspections will be $47.00 each. Inspections are not necessary for properties with a low hazard rating. • 15 Attarhmant F • Quick Facts... FireWise landscaping can be aesthetically pleasing while reducing potential wildfire fuel Plant choice, spacing and • maintenance are critical. Your landscape, and the plants in it, must be maintained to retain their FireWise properties. Colo 0 University Cooperative Extension • Putting I(nowledge to N'ork ©Colorado State University Cooperative Extension. 4/02. Reviewed 1/06. www. ext. co I ostate. ed u N A T U R A L R E S O U R C E S~ S E R I E S FORES I RY FireWise Plant Materials no. 6.305 by F.C. Dennis' Creating a "defensible space" around your home is one of the most important and effective steps you can take to protect you, your family and your home from catastrophic wildfire. Defensible space is the area between a structure and an oncoming wildfire where nearby vegetation has been modified to reduce a wildfire's intensity. (See fact sheet 6.302, Creating Wildfire-Defensible Zones.) Many people resist creating defensible space around their homes because they believe these areas will be unattractive and unnatural. This is far from true. With careful planning, FireWise landscaping can be aesthetically pleasing while reducing potential wildfire fuel. It can actually enhance beauty and property values, as well as personal safety. Many native plants are highly flammable during different seasons of the year. At such times, left unmanaged, they can accelerate the spread of a wildfire through your neighborhood, threatening homes, property and lives. All vegetation, naturally occurring and otherwise, is potential fuel for fire. Its type, amount and arrangement has a dramatic effect on fire behavior. There are no truly "fireproof' plant species, so plant choice, spacing and maintenance are critical to defensible space landscaping. In fact, where and how you plant may be more important than what you plant. However, given alternatives, choose plant species that tend to be more resistant to wildfire. General concepts to keep in mind when choosing and planting FireWise species are: • A plant's moisture content is the single most important factor governing its volatility. (However, resin content and other factors in some species render them flammable even when the plant is well- watered.) Conifers tend to be flammable due to their oil and pitch content, regardless of their water content. • Deciduous plants tend to be more fire resistant because their leaves have higher moisture content and their basic chemistry is less flammable. Also, when deciduous trees are dormant, there is less fuel to carry fire through their canopies. In some cases, there is a strong correlation between drought tolerance and fire resistance. For example, a plant may shed its leaves or needles during extreme drought. Other drought-tolerant species may have smaller leaves or thick, succulent leaves. These plants offer less fuel or have a higher moisture content, both of which help reduce fire hazard. There also appears to be a correlation between a plant's salt tolerance and natural fire resistance. Plants adapted to salty conditions, and actually growing in salty situations, may better resist burning. FireWise Plant List The following list was prepared by Phil Hoefer, Colorado State Forest Service. It was reviewed by Jim Knopf, a landscape architect in Boulder, and two landscape architects on Colorado's Western Slope. Bloom time is approximate (observed in Boulder at 5,600 feet). Key: Water needs: VL =very low L =low M =medium H =high Sun/Shade: S =sun PS =part sun Sh =shade Elevation: Y =Yes N = No ? =Questionable or unknown Scientific Name Achillea /anulosa a Achillea tomentosa Aconitum spp.° Aconitum co/umbianum a° Ajuga reptans b A/chemilla sp. Allium cernuum B° Allium geyeri 80 Anaphalis margaritacea a Anemone blanda Antennaria parvifolia en Antennaria roses ab Aquilegia spp. Aquilegia coeru/ea a Aquilegia chrysantha a Arabis sp.' Armeria maritima Artemisia caucasica Artemisia frigida A0 Artemisia ludoviciana e Aster laevis a Aster porteri a Aubrieta sp.b Aurinia sp.b Calochortus gunnisonii e Campanula rotundifolia a Centranthus ruber Cerastium strictum an Cerastium tomentosum n Claytonia lanceolata e. Convallaria majalis x Delosperma nubigenum b Delphinium spp.° Dianthus spp. Doronicum sp. Echinacea purpureae Epilobium angustifolium Erigeron flagellaris e Eriogonum umbellatum e Erysimum asperum a Gaillardia aristata e Galium boreale ab Geranium spp. Geranium caespitosum a Geum friflorum Helianthella quinquenervis e Helianthemum nummularium Helianthus pumilus e Heuchera spp. Ipomopsis aggregata a Iris germanica Common Name Native yarrow Woolly yarrow Monkshood Columbian monkshood Bugleweed Lady's mantle Nodding onion Geyer onion Pearly everlasting Windflower Small-leaf pussytoes Rosy pussytoes Columbine Colorado blue columbine Yellow columbine Rockcress Sea thrift Caucasian sage Fringed sage Prairie sage Smooth aster Porter aster False rockcress Basket of gold Mariposa lily Common harebell Jupiter's beard Mouse ear chickweed Snow-in-summer Spring beauty Lily-of-the-valley Hardy yellow iceplant Delphinium Pinks Leopard's bane Purple coneflower Fireweed Whiplash daisy, trailing fleabane Sulphur flower Western wallflower Blanket flower Northern bedstraw Hardy geraniums Wild geranium Prairie smoke Aspen sunflower Approx. Approx. Elevation Approx. Water Sun/Shade Mature (1,000 ft.) Bloom Needs Preference Height 5 6 7 6 9 Month Flowers and Ground Covers L-H S/PS 1.5 - 2' Y Y Y Y Y Jul M-H S/PS .5' Y Y N N N Jul M-H S 2' Y Y Y Y Y Jun-Jul M-H S 2' Y Y Y Y Y Jun-Jul H Sh < .5' Y Y Y Y Y Jun-Jul M-H PS/Sh 1' Y Y Y Y ? Jun-Jul L-H S/PS 1' Y Y Y Y Y Jun L-H S/PS 1' Y Y Y Y ? Jun L-H S 1.5 - 2.5' Y Y Y Y ? Aug M-H S/PS 1' Y Y Y Y ? Apr-May M S/PS <.5' Y Y Y Y Y Jun M S/PS <.5' Y Y Y Y Y Jun M-H S/PS 1- 2' Y Y Y Y Y Jun-Jul M-H S/PS 1- 2' Y Y Y Y Y Jun-Jul M-H S/PS 1- 2' Y Y Y Y Y Jun-Aug L-H S < 1' Y Y Y Y Y May-Jun L-H S/PS .5' Y Y Y Y Y Apr-Jun L-M S/PS 1- 2' Y Y Y ? ? n/a L-M S 1- 1.5' Y Y Y Y Y n/a L-M S 1- 1.5' Y Y Y ? ? n/a L-H S/PS 1- 3' Y Y Y Y ? Aug-Sep L-M S 1' Y Y Y ? ? Aug-Sep M S 1' Y Y Y Y Y Apr-May M S/PS 1' Y Y Y Y Y Apr-May M-H S .5 - 2' Y Y Y Y ? Jul-Aug M-H S .5 - 1' Y Y Y Y Y May-Oct L-H S/Sh 2- 2.5' Y Y Y Y ? May-Oct M S/PS 1' Y Y Y Y ? May-Jun L-M S/PS 1' Y Y Y Y Y May-Jun M Sh .5 - 1.5' Y Y Y ? ? Mar-Apr H Sh < 1' Y Y Y Y ? May-Jun M-H S .5' Y Y Y ? ? Jun M-H S/PS .5 - 3'+ Y Y Y Y Y Jun-Jul L-H S <.5' - 2' Y Y Y Y Y May-Aug H S/PS 2- 3' Y Y Y Y ? Jul-Aug M S 2- 3' Y Y Y Y Y Jul-Aug H S/PS 3' N Y Y Y Y Jul-Aug L-M S < 1' Y Y ? ? ? Jun-Jul M S/PS <.5' Y Y Y Y Y Jun-Jul M S/PS 1'+ Y Y Y Y ? Jun-Jul L-M S 1- 1.5' Y Y Y Y Y Jul-Sep M-H Sh <1' Y Y Y Y Y May-Jun M Sh/PS 2' Y Y Y Y Y May-Oct M Sh/PS 2' Y Y Y Y Y May-Oct M-H S/PS 1.5' Y Y Y ? ? Jun M S 1' ? ? ? Y Y ? • Rockrose M-H S < 1' Y Y Y ? ? May-Jun • Small sunflower M S 1- 2' Y Y Y ? ? Jun-Jul Coral bells M-H PS/Sh 1- 2' Y Y Y Y Y Jun-Aug Scarlet gilia M S/PS 1- 2' Y Y Y Y Y Jun-Aug Bearded iris L-M S 1- 3' Y Y Y Y Y May-Jun Approx. Water Scientific Name • Iris missouriensis ~ Common Name Missouri iris Needs M-H Lamium sp.° Dead nettle M-H Lavandula spp. Lavender L-M Leucocrinum montanum a Sand lily L-M Liatris punctata ° Dotted gayfeather VL-L Linum lewisii B° Wild blue flax L-H Lupinus argenteus e° Silver lupine M Mertensia lanceo/ata a Narrow-leaved chiming bel ls M-H Mimulus guttatus e Yellow monkey-flower H Monarda fistulosa ° Native beebalm M-H Oenothera caespitosa a White stemless evening L-M primrose Papaver orientate Oriental poppy H Penstemon caespitosus ab Mat penstemon L-M Penstemon secundiflorus Sidebells L-M Penstemon teucrioides e Germander penstemon L-M Penstemon vireos °° Blue mist penstemon M Phlox subulata Moss phlox M Po/emonium sp. Jacob's ladder H Potentilla fissa e Leafy potentilla M-H Potentilla verna ° Spring potentilla M-H Pulsatilla patens e Pasque flower M Ratibida co/umnifera a Prairie coneflower L-M Rudbeckia hirta a Black-eyed Susan M-H Salvia officinalis Cooking sage L-M Saxifraga hirsuta Saxifrage H Scutellaria brittonii a Skullcap M Sedum spp.° Stonecrop M Sedum lanceolatum a Yellow stonecrop M • Sempervivum sp. Hens and chicks L-M Senecio spartioides80 Broom groundsel VL-L Solidago missouriensis a Smooth goldenrod L-M Thalictrum fendleri a Fendler meadowrue H Thermopsis divaricarpa a Spreading golden banner M-H Tradescantia occidentalis e Western spidervvort M Thymus spp.° Thyme L-M Veronica pectinata Speedwell L-M Vinca minor° Periwinkle, myrtle H Waldsteinia sp b Barren strawberry M-H Arctostaphy/os Pinemat manzanita M nevadensis ab Arctostaphylos patula a Greenleaf manzanita M Arctostaphylos uva-ursi ab Kinnikinnick, bearberry M Betula glanulosa e Bog birch H Calluna sp. Heather H Ceanothus fendleri a Buckbrush, mountain lilac M Cercocarpus intricatus e Little-leaf mountain VL-L mahogany Cercocarpus montanus 80 True mountain mahogany L-M Chrysothamnus spp.a Rabbitbrush VL-L Cornus stolonifera ° Redtwig dogwood H Cotoneaster horizontalis Spreading cotoneaster M Daphne burkwoodii Burkwood daphne M Erica sp. Heath H Euonymus alatus Burning bush euonymus M Fallugia paradoxa ° Apache plume VL-L •Holodiscus dumosus e Ocean spray, cliff/rock spirea L-M Jamesia americans e Wax flower M-H Lonicera tatarica Tatarian honeysuckle M Mahonia aquifolium Oregon grape holly M-H Approx. Elevation Approx. Sun/Shade Mature (1,000 ft.) Bloom Preference Height 5 6 7 8 9 Month S 1- 2' Y Y Y Y Y May Sh < 1' Y Y Y Y ? May-Jun S 1- 2' Y Y Y ? ? Jun-Nov S < 1' Y Y Y ? ? May S 1- 2' Y Y Y Y Y Aug-Oct S/PS 1- 2' Y Y Y Y Y May-Sep Sh/PS 1- 3' Y Y Y Y Y Jun-Jul Sh/PS 1- 2' Y Y Y Y Y May-Jun Sh 1' ? Y Y Y Y ? S/PS 1- 2' Y Y Y Y Y Jul-Oct S 1- 2' Y Y Y Y Y Jun-Aug S/Sh 2- 3' Y Y Y Y Y May-Jun S < .5' Y Y Y Y Y Jun S 1- 2' Y Y Y Y ? May-Jun S .5' Y Y Y ? ? Jun-Jul S/PS .5' Y Y Y Y Y May-Jun S < .5' Y Y Y Y Y May S/PS 1- 2' Y Y Y Y Y May-Aug PS 1' Y Y Y Y ? ? PS < .5' Y Y Y Y Y Mar-May S/PS 1' Y Y Y Y Y Mar-May S 2' Y Y Y Y Y Jul-Sep S 2- 3' Y Y Y Y Y Jul-Sep S/PS 2' Y Y Y Y ? Jun S/PS .5'+ Y Y Y Y Y May-Jun S/PS .5 - 1' Y Y Y Y ? Aug-Sep S/PS 1- 1.5' Y Y Y Y Y Jul-Aug S/PS .5' Y Y Y Y Y Jul-Aug S/PS .5' Y Y Y Y Y n/a S 2 - 3' Y Y ? ? ? • .Sep-Oct S 1- 2' Y Y Y Y ? Jul-Aug S/PS 2- 3' ? ? Y Y Y Jul-Aug S/PS 2' Y Y Y Y ? May S/PS 1.5' Y Y Y Y ? Jun-Aug S < .5' Y Y Y Y Y Jun-Jul S < .5' Y Y Y Y Y Apr-Jul Sh < 1' Y Y Y Y ? Apr-Jun Sh/PS < 1' Y Y Y Y ? May-Jun Shrubs S/PS 1- 2' Y Y Y N N n/a S/PS 3- 4' Y Y Y N N n/a S/Sh 1' Y Y Y Y Y n/a S/PS 6- S' Y Y Y Y Y n/a S/PS 2' Y Y Y ? ? Jul-Aug S 2' Y Y Y ? ? Jul S 4- 6' Y Y Y Y ? n/a S 4-6' Y Y Y Y ? n/a S 2- 6' Y Y Y Y Y Jul-Aug S/Sh 4- 6' Y Y Y Y Y n/a S/PS 2- 3' Y Y Y Y ? May-Jun S/PS 2- 3' Y Y Y ? ? Apr-Jun S/PS 1' Y Y Y ? ? Jan-Mar S/Sh 1- 6' Y Y Y ? ? n/a S 2- 4' Y Y Y Y Y Jun-Oct S/PS 4' Y Y Y Y Y Jun S/Sh 2- 6' Y Y Y Y Y Jun S/PS 4- 6' Y Y Y Y Y May-Jun S/Sh 4- 6' Y Y Y ? ? May-Jun Scientific Name Mahonia repens ab Philadelphus microphyllus Physocarpus monogynus a Potentilla fruticosa e Prunus besseyia Purshia tridentata a Ribes aureum a Rosa woodsii a Shepherdia canadensis a Symphoricarpos spp. d Viburnum edule a Yucca baccata e Yucca filamentosa Yucca g/auca a Approx. Approx. Elevation Approx. Water Sun/Shade Mature (1,000 ft.) Bloom Common Name Needs Preference Height 5 6 7 8 9 Month Creeping grape holly L-H S/Sh 1- 2' Y Y Y Y Y Mar-May Little-leaf mockorange M S 2- 3' Y Y Y Y? Jun Mountain ninebark M S/Sh 2- 4' Y Y Y Y Y Jun Shrubby cinquefoil M S/PS Western sand cherry L-M S Antelope bitterbrush L-M S Golden currant M S/PS Woods' or native wild rose M S/PS Russet buffaloberry M-H S Snowberry, coralberry M S/PS Highbush cranberry H S Banana or broad-leaf yucca VL-L S/PS Adam's needle M S/PS Spanish bayonet, small VL-L S/PS soapweed, Great Plains yucca Large Shrub s and Trees Acerginnala Ginnala maple M-H S Acerglabrum a Rocky Mountain maple M-H S/Sh Acergrandidentatume Wasatch maple M S/PS Alnus tenuifolia a Thinleaf alder H S/PS Amelanchier alnifolia a° Saskatoon alder-leaf M S/PS serviceberry Amelanchier utahensis e Utah serviceberry Betula fontinalis e River birch Cercocarpus ledifolius a Mountain mahogany Corylus cornuta e Filbert, beaked hazelnut Crataegus spp.e Hawthorn (several native) Fraxinus pennsy/vancia Green ash Gleditsia triacanthos Honeylocust Malus sp. Crabapple Physocarpus opulifolius a Tall ninebark Popu/us tremuloides a Aspen Prunus americans a American wild plum Prunus cerasifera° Flowering plum Prunus pensylvanica a° Pin/fire/wild/red cherry Prunus virginiana Western chokecherry melanocarpa B° Rubus deliciosus a Boulder raspberry, 2- 3' Y Y Y Y Y May-Sep 1- 3' Y Y Y Y ? May 1 - 2' Y Y Y ? ? Jun-Aug 2- 3' Y Y Y Y Y Apr-May 2- 3' Y Y Y Y Y Jun-Jul 5-6' Y Y Y Y Y n/a 2- 3' Y Y Y Y Y n/a 6- 8' Y Y Y Y Y May-Jun 2-3' Y Y Y N N Jun 2-3' Y Y Y N N Jun 2-3' Y Y Y Y ? Jun 6- 10' Y Y Y Y Y n/a 6- 10' Y Y Y Y Y n/a 10 - 20' Y Y Y Y ? n/a 6-8' Y Y Y Y Y Apr 6- 8' Y Y Y Y Y Apr-May VL-M S 4- 6' Y Y N N N May H S/PS 6- 8' Y Y Y Y ? n/a VL-L S 6- 15' Y Y ? N N n/a H S/Sh 5- 6' Y Y Y ? ? n/a M S 6-8' Y Y Y Y ? May M-H S 20 - 25' Y Y Y Y ? n/a M-H S 60 - 70' Y Y N N N May M S ' 10 - 15' Y Y Y Y N Apr-May M S/PS 4- 6' Y Y Y ? N May M S 8- 25' Y Y Y Y Y n/a M S/PS 4- 6' Y Y Y Y N Apr M S/PS 8- 10' Y Y Y ? N Apr M S/PS 6- 8' Y Y Y ? N May M-H S/PS 6- 8' Y Y Y Y Y Apr-May M S/Sh 4- 6' Y Y Y Y Y Apr-May thimbleberry Salix amygdaloides a Peachleaf willow H S/PS 20 - 30' Y Y Y Y ? n/a Shepherdia argentea a Silver buffaloberry M S/PS 4- 6' Y Y Y Y? Apr Sorbus scopulina a Western mountain ash M-H S/Sh 6- 8' Y Y Y Y? May Syringa vu/garis Common lilac M S 6- 8' Y Y Y Y Y May e Native species. e Ground cover plant. ° This species, or some species in this genus, may be poisonous to livestock, pets, wildlife and/or people under some conditions. Before planting, check with Colorado State University Cooperative Extension, Colorado State Forest Service, or other knowledgeable personnel. Several species of symphoricarpos are native. • • • • • Conifers In Colorado, conifers make up much of our natural forest. Because of their high resin content, they are more susceptible to fire. Even though conifers are flammable, you do not need to remove all of them from around your home. Wildfire hazards usually can be effectively reduced through proper thinning and pruning of existing trees and shrubs. When choosing conifers for your defensible space, consider those with characteristics that make them better able to survive fire: • thick bark, • long needles, or • self-pruning. (Self-pruning trees lose lower branches naturally, leaving a greater distance between ground and canopy.) Plants for a FireWise Landscape Plants that are more resistant to wildfire have one or more of the following characteristics: • They grow without accumulating large amounts of combustible dead branches, needles or leaves (example: aspen). • They have open, loose branches with a low volume of total vegetation (examples: currant and mountain mahogany). • They have low sap or resin content (examples: many deciduous species). • They have high moisture content (examples succulents and some herbaceous species). • They grow slowly and need little maintenance (do not need frequent pruning). • They are short and grow close to the ground (examples: wildflowers and groundcovers). • They can resprout following fire, thus reducing relandscaping costs (example: aspen). Additional FireWise Guidelines include: Some additional tips to follow when planning a FireWise landscape Landscape according to the recommended defensible-space zones. The plants nearest your home should be more widely spaced and smaller than those farther away. Plant in small, irregular clusters and islands, not in large masses. Break up the continuity of the vegetation (fuel) with decorative rock, gravel and stepping stone pathways. This will help modify fire behavior and slow its spread across your property. Plant a variety of types and species. Besides being aesthetically pleasing, this will help ensure a healthier forest by reducing insects and diseases. Healthy, vigorous, thinned forests can better resist catastrophic fires than unhealthy ones with insect and disease problems. In the event of drought and water rationing, prioritize the plants you wish to save. Provide supplemental water to those nearest your home, perhaps using "gray water." • Mulch to conserve moisture and reduce weed growth. Mulch can be organic (wood chips or small bark pieces) or inorganic (gravel or rock). Avoid pine bark, thick layers of pine needles or other materials that can easily carry fire. Don't Forget Maintenance • A landscape is a dynamic, constantly changing system. Plants considered "fire resistant" and that have low fuel volumes can lose these characteristics over time. Your landscape, and the plants in it, must be maintained to retain their FireWise properties. Be aware of the growth habits of the plants on your land and of the changes that occur seasonally. Keep a watchful eye for the need to reduce fuel • volumes and fuel continuity. • Remove annual, herbaceous plants after they have gone to seed or when the stems become overly dry. • Rake up and dispose of litter as it builds up over the season. • Mow or trim grasses to a low height within your defensible space. This is especially important as they begin to cure and dry. • Remove plant parts damaged by snow, wind, frost or other agents. • Timely pruning is critical. It not only reduces fuel volume but also maintains healthier plants with more succulent, vigorous growth. Additional FireWise Publications Cooperative Extension The following publications are available from The Other Bookstore, Colorado State University Cooperative Extension, 115 General Services Bldg., Fort Collins, CO 80523-4061; (970) 491-6198; resourcecenter@ucm.colostate. edu. Printed copies cost $1; they are available free on our Web site at www.cerc. colostate.edu: • 6.302, Creating Wildfire-Defensible Zones • 6.303, Fire-Resistant Landscaping • 6.304, Fire Safety, Evacuation and Horne Defense • 6.306, Grass Seed Mixes for the Reduction of Wildfire Hazard • 7.205, Pruning Evergreens • 7.206, Pruning Shrubs 7.207, Pruning Deciduous Trees 7.402, Protecting Trees During Construction Colorado State Forest Service The following publication is available from the Colorado State Forest Service, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523-5060; (970) 491-6303: • Home Fire Protection in the Wildland Urban Interface, CSFS #142-399 Colo 0 FOREST SERVICE This fact sheet was produced in cooperation with the Colorado State Forest Service. Colorado State University, U.S. Department of Agriculture and Colorado counties cooperating. Wildfire Hazard Mitigation Coordinator, Cooperative Extension programs are available to all without discrimination. No endorsement of Colorado State Forest Service. products mentioned is intended nor is criticism implied of products not mentioned. • • FIREWISE is amulti-agency program that encourages the development of defensible space and the prevention of catastrophic wildfire. SOWN OF VAIL ' Department of Community Development 7S South Frontage Road Yail, Colorado 81657 970-479-2138 FAX 970-479-2452 www. vailgou com June 12, 2006 Staufer Commercial, LLC c/o Steve Viron 100 East Meadow Drive Vail, Colorado 81657 and Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission and Adjacent Property Owners: • Re: Report to the Planning and Environmental Commission of an administrative action approving a request for a minor amendment to SDD No. 6, Vail Village Inn, pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for modifications to the approved building plans for the Vail Village Inn Phase V (La Bottega), 100 East Meadow Drive/Lot M, Block 5D, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Stauffer Commercial, LLC and Steve Viron, represented by KH Webb Architects Planner: Warren Campbell Dear Mr. Stauffer, Mr. Viron, PEC members, and adjacent property owners: On May 8, 2006, Stauffer Commercial, LLC and Steve Viron, represented by KH Webb Architects, submitted an application to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for a minor amendment to Special Development District No. 6, Vail Village Inn Phase V. The purpose of the minor amendment is to allow for the construction of an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant restroom to the commercial space occupied by the La Bottega restaurant. The addition to the structure will occur on the north elevation (rear) where there is currently a jog in the building and will be only one-story in height. Please see the attached photograph of the location of the approved addition shown in a red outline. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST • The applicants, Stauffer Commercial, LLC and Steve Viron, represented by KH Webb Architects, have requested a minor amendment to Special Development District No. 6, Vail Village Inn Phase V, to allow for the construction of an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) CYCLED PIPER compliant restroom to the commercial space occupied by the La Bottega restaurant, located • at 100 East Meadow Drive. The purpose of the minor amendment is to allow for the construction of an ADA compliant restroom to the commercial space occupied by the La Bottega restaurant. The need for the ADA compliant restroom is created by the proposed expansion of La Bottega into the Secret Garden tenant space. Per the proposed plans, there is no net change in the total number of condominiums or change in the amount of allowable gross residential floor area. There is an increase in retail/commercial floor area by 61 square feet for the ADA compliant restroom. There are minor changes to the west elevation to allow for a french balcony open seating. These changes will be required to receive Design Review Board approval. A "minor amendment" is defined as: "Modifications to building plans, site or landscape plans that do not alter the basic intent and character of the approved special development district, and are consistent with the design criteria of this Chapter. Minor amendments may include, but not be limited to, variations of not more than five feet (5) fo approved setbacks and/or building footprints; changes to landscape or site plans that do not adversely impact pedestrian or vehicular circulation throughout the special development district; or changes to gross floor area (excluding residential uses) of not more than five percent (5%) of the approved square footage of retail, office, common areas and other nonresidential floor area, except as provided under Sections 12-15-4 (Interior Conversions) or 12-15-5 (250 Additional GRFA) of this Title. II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS A. Section 12-9A-2: Minor Amendment (staff review): modifications to building • plans that do not alter the basic intent and character of the approved special development district and are consistent with the design criteria of this Chapter. Staff finds that approval of this minor amendment request does not alter the basic intent and character of Special Development District No. 6, Vail Village Inn Phase V. As stated above, there is no change in the total number of dwelling units or change in the amount of allowable gross residential floor area. The addition does change the approved setbacks by less than five (5) feet and the amount of retail/commercial floor area by less than five (5) percent. B. Section 12-9A-10: Minor modifications consistent with the design criteria outlined in subsection 12-9A-2 may be approved by the Department of Community Development. Notification of a proposed minor amendment and a report of staff action shall be provided to all property owners within or adjacent to the district that may be affected by the amendment. Notification shall be postmarked no later than 5 day following staff action on the amendment and shall include a brief statement describing the amendment and the time and date of when the Planning and Environmental Commission will be informed of the staff decision. Notification of the public hearing and a summary of the request has been provided to all adjacent property owners. • 2 . III. PROCEDURE Section 12-9A-10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, provides the procedure for a minor amendment to a Special Development District. The procedure is as follows: 12-9A-10: AMENDMENT PROCEDURES: A. Minor Amendments: 1. Minor modifications consistent with the design criteria outlined in subsection 12-9A-2 (definition of "minor amendment') of this Article, may be approved by the Department of Community Development. All minor modifications shall be indicated on a completely revised development plan. Approved changes shall be noted, signed, dated and filed by the Department of Community Development. 2. Notification of a proposed minor amendment, and a report of staff action of said request, shall be provided to all property owners within or adjacent to the special development district that maybe affected by the amendment. Affected properties shall be as determined by the Department of Community Development. Notifications shall be postmarked no later than five (5) days following staff action on the amendment request and shall include a brief statement describing the amendment and the time and date of when the Planning and Environmental Commission will be informed of the staff decision. !n all cases the report to the Planning and Environmental Commission shall be made within twenty (20) days from the date of the staffs decision on the • requested amendment. 3. Appeals of staff decisions may be filed by adjacent property owners, owners of property within the special development district, the applicant, Planning and Environmental Commission members or members of the Town Council as outlined in Section 12-3-3 of this Title. Based upon review of the criteria and findings in Article 12-9A, Special Development District, Vail Town Code, staff finds the above-referenced amendment to Special Development District No. 6 is approved with two conditions in accordance with the procedures as identified in Section 12-9A-10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code. The conditions are as follows: 1) That the Applicant receives final review and approval of the proposed exterior changes by the Town of Vail Design Review Board, prior to making an application for the issuance of a building permit. 2) That the applicant shall submit an amended condominium plat of the Villaae Inn Phase V Condominiums for review and approval prior to requesting a temporary certificate of occupancy or certificate of occupancy. Staff's approval of this minor special development district amendment will be reported at a public hearing before the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission on Monday, June 12, 2006, at 2:00 p.m. in the Vail Town Council Chambers, located at 75 South Frontage Road. The Planning and Environmental Commission reserves the right to "call up" this staff decision for additional review at this hearing. • Pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Vail Town Code, appeals of staff decisions maybe filed by adjacent property owners, owners of property within the special development district, the applicant, Planning and Environmental Commission members or members of the Town Council as outlined in Section 12-3-3, Appeals, Vail Town Code. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact 3 me at 970-479-2148. • Sincerely, Warren Campbell, AICP Senior Planner Town of Vail • \ r ~~ y ~: ~ ~.r, ;~, Mpg ;,..,.. ~ - °-~,~ • , a .a -~ ,. ..~_- .. _.. L;::~ -~~ ~ ~~4~- ~ MinorArn+~n~rn~nt ..~ •_ ~~ MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 12, 2006 SUBJECT: A request for a final review of a final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for the relocation of the common property line between Lots 7 and 4, located at 107 and 103 Rockledge Road/Lots 7 and 4, Block 7, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0038) Applicant: Gary Rosenbach and Vernon Taylor, represented by K.H. Webb Architects Planner: Bill Gibson I. SUMMARY The applicants, Gary Rosenbach and Vernon Taylor, are requesting approval of a final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for the relocation of the common property line between Lots 7 and 4, located at 107 and 103 Rockledge Road. Staff is recommending approval of this application based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VIII of this memorandum. II. DESCRIPTION OF RE(~UEST The applicants, Gary Rosenbach and Vernon Taylor, are proposing to relocate the common property line between Lots 7 and 4, located at 107 and 103 Rockledge Road/Lots 7 and 4, Block 7, Vail Village Filing 1. This relocation will bring the existing legally non-conforming residence located on Lot 7 more into conformance with the side setback requirements of the Two-Family Primary/Secondary Zone District. The proposed property exchange is one-foot-for-one-foot, so there is no net change to the lot sizes. A vicinity map (i.e. Attachment A), the applicant's request (i.e. Attachment B), and a proposed site plan and final plat (Attachments C and D) have been attached for reference. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall review this request based upon the provisions of Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code. III. BACKGROUND There is an existing residence located on Lot 7, which according to Eagle County records, was originally constructed in 1965. The subject properties were part of the "original Town of Vail" established in August of 1966. The adjacent Parcel C was annexed into the Town of Vait and certain properties along Rockledge Road (including the subject properties) were re-subdivided in February of 1980. The jog in the property line between Lot 7 and Lot 4 appears on the 1980 plats. The existing • residence on Lot 7 is legally non-conforming in regard to the side setback requirements of the Two-Family Primary/Secondary Zone District. IV. ROLES OF REVIEWING BOARDS Plannina and Environmental Commission: Action: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for final approval, approval with modifications, or denial of a final plat, in accordance with Sub-section 13-12-3C, Review and Action on Plat, Vail Town Code. Desian Review Board: Action: The Design Review Board has no review authority on a final plat, but must review any accompanying Design Review Board application. Town Council: The Town Council has the authority to hear and decide appeals from any decision, determination, or interpretation by the Planning and Environmental Commission and/or Design Review Board. The Town Council may also call up a decision of the Planning and Environmental Commission and/or Design Review Board. Staff: The Town Staff facilitates the application review process. Staff reviews the submitted application materials for completeness and general compliance with the appropriate requirements of the Town Code. Staff also provides the Planning and Environmental Commission a memorandum containing a description and background of the application; an evaluation of the application in regard to the criteria and findings outlined by the Town Code; and a recommendation of approval, approval with modifications, or denial. V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS TITLE 13, SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS (in part) 13-2, DEFINITIONS (in part): EXEMPTION PLAT.• The platting of a portion of land or property that does not fall within the definition of a "subdivision'; as contained in this section. 13-3-4: COMMISSION REVIEW OF APPLICATION; CRITERIA AND NECESSARY FINDINGS: The Planning and Environmental Commission shall conduct a public hearing on an application for a Preliminary Plan for Subdivision. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall consider the application, relevant additional materials, Staff report and recommendations as well as any other comments or public information given at the hearing. The Planning and Environmental Commission may discuss advisable changes to the proposed subdivision with the applicant. The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of this Chapter, the Zoning Ordinance and other pertinent regulations that the Planning and • Environmental Commission deems applicable. Due consideration shall be given to the recommendations made by public agencies, utility companies _ and other agencies consulted under Ssubsection 13-3-3C above. A. Before recommending approval, approval with conditions or disapproval of the Preliminary Plan, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall consider the following criteria with respect to the proposed subdivision: 1. The extent to which the proposed subdivision is consistent with all the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town; and 2. The extent to which the proposed subdivision complies with all of the standards of this Title, as well as, but not limited to, Title i2, Zoning Regulations and other pertinent regulations that the Planning and Environmental Commission deems applicable; and 3. The extent to which the proposed subdivision presents a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses consistent with municipal development objectives; and 4. The extent of the effects on the future development of the • surrounding area; and 5. The extent to which the proposed subdivision is located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development; and 6. The extent to which the utility lines are sized to serve the planned ultimate population of the service area to avoid future land disruption to upgrade under-sized lines; and 7. The extent to which the proposed subdivision provides for the growth of an orderly viable community and serves the best interests of the community as a whole; and 8. The extent to which the proposed subdivision results in adverse or beneficial impacts on the natural environment, including, but not limited to, water quality, air quality, noise, vegetation, riparian corridors, hillsides and other desirable natural features; and 9. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission and/or Council deem applicable to the proposed subdivision. • B. Necessary Findings: Before recommending and/or granting an approval of an application for a major subdivision, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings with • respect to the proposed major subdivision: 1. That the subdivision is in compliance with the criteria listed in Subsection 13-3-4A of this Title. 2. That the subdivision is consistent with the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and compatible with the development objectives of the Town; and 3. That the subdivision is compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses and appropriate for the surrounding areas; and 4. That the subdivision promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. 13-12, EXEMPTION PLAT REVIEW PROCEDURES (in part) 13-12-1: PURPOSE AND /NTENT.~ The purpose of this chapter is to establish criteria and an appropriate review process whereby the planning and environmental commission may grant exemptions from the definition of the term "subdivision" for properties that are • determined to fall outside the purpose, purview and intent of Chapter 3 and 4 of this title. This process is intended to allow for the platting of property where no additional parcels are created and conformance with applicable provisions of this code has been demonstrated. 13-12-2: EXEMPTIONS IN PROCEDURE AND SUBMITTALS: "Exemption Plats'; as defined in Section 13-2-2 of this title, shall be exempt from requirements related to preliminary plan procedures and submittals. Exemption plat applicants may be required to submit an environmental impact report if required by Title i2, Chapter 12 of this code. 13-12-3: PLAT PROCEDURE AND CRITERIA FOR REVIE (in part): C. Review And Action On Plat: The planning and environmental commission shall review the plat and associated materials and shall approve, approve with modifications or disapprove the plat within twenty one (21) days of the first public hearing on the exemption plat application or the exemption plat application will be deemed approved. A longer time period for rendering a decision may be granted subject to mutual agreement between the planning and environmental commission and the applicant. The criteria for reviewing the plat shall be as contained in Section 13-3-4 of this title. • 4 • VI. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING _ Land Use Zoning North: Residential Two-Family Primary/Secondary District East: Residential Two-Family Primary/Secondary District West: Residential Two-Family Primary/Secondary District South: Open Space Natural Area Preservation District VU. SITE ANALYSIS Address: Existing Legal Descriptions: Zoning: Land Use Plan Designation: Current Land Use: Development Standard Allowed Proposed 107 and 127 Rockledge Road Lot 7 and Lot 4, Block 7, Vail Village Filing 1 Two-Family Primary/Secondary District Low Density Residential Lot 7: Existing Residence Lot 4: Undeveloped Lot 4, Lot Area (min.) 15,000sq.ft. 19,571 sq.ft. Lot 7, Lot Area (min.) 15,000sq.ft. 29,220sq.ft. Lot 4, Street Frontage (min.) 30ft. Oft. (access easement) Lot 7, Street Frontage (min.) 30ft. 35ft. • Lot 4, Size and Shape (min.) 80ft. x 80ft. >80ft. x >80ft. Lot 7, Size and Shape (min.) 80ft. x 80ft. >80ft. x >80ft. VIII. APPLICATION CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Chanae None None None None None None A. Criteria: Pursuant to Section 13-3-4, Commission Review of Application; Criteria, Vail Town Code, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall consider the following criteria with respect to the proposed final plat: (1) The extent to which the proposed subdivision is consistent with all the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town; and Staff Response: The proposed subdivision is more in consistent with the applicable elements of Vail Comprehensive Plan and the Town's development objectives than the existing non-conforming conditions. (2) The extent to which the proposed subdivision complies with all of the standards of this Title, as well as, but not limited to, Title 12, Zoning Regulations and other pertinent regulations that the Planning and Environmental Commission deems applicable; and • Staff Response: The proposed subdivision is more in compliance with the applicable portions of the Town of Vail's Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Regulations than the existing non-conforming conditions. (3) The extent to which the proposed subdivision presents a harmonious, • convenient, workable relationship among land uses consistent with municipal development objectives; and Staff Response: The proposed subdivision will continue to be harmonious, convenient, and workable relationship with other properties within the vicinity. The proposed subdivision is more consistent with the Town's development objectives than the existing non-conforming conditions. (4) The extent of the effects on the future development of the surrounding area; and Staff Response: There will be no significant negative effects upon the future development of the surrounding area in comparison to the existing conditions. (5) The extent to which the proposed subdivision is located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development; and Staff Response: As a re-subdivision of an existing improved property, this proposed subdivision will not create inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, require the duplication or extension of public facilities, or create "leapfrog" development. • (6) The extent to which the utility lines are sized to serve the planned ultimate population of the service area to avoid future land disruption to upgrade under-sized lines; and Staff Response: As a re-subdivision of an existing improved property, this subdivision will have no additional impact on utility lines and/or service areas in comparison to existing conditions. (7) The extent to which the proposed subdivision provides for the growth of an orderly viable community and serves the best interests of the community as a whole; and Staff Response: The proposed subdivision is more in compliance with the Town's Subdivision Regulations, Zoning Regulations, and development objects. The proposed subdivision better provides for the growth of an orderly, viable community and better serves the community's interests as a whole in comparison to existing conditions. (8) The extent to which the proposed subdivision results in adverse or beneficial impacts on the natural environment, including, but not limited to, water quality, air quality, noise, vegetation, riparian corridors, hillsides and other desirable natural features; and Staff Response: As a re-subdivision of an existing improved property, this • subdivision will have no significant impact on the natural environment. • (9) Such other factors and criteria as the Commission and/or Council deem . applicable to the proposed subdivision. B. Findings: Pursuant to Section 13-3-4, Commission Review of Application; Criteria, Vail Town Code, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings with respect to the proposed final plat: (1) That the subdivision is in compliance with the criteria listed in Subsection 13-3-4A, Vail Town Code; and (2) That the subdivision is consistent with the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and compatible with the development objectives of the Town; and (3) That the subdivision is compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses and appropriate for the surrounding areas; and (4) That the subdivision promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. • IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission approves the final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for the relocation of the common property line between Lots 7 and 4, located at 107 and 103 Rockledge Road/Lots 7 and 4, Block 7, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting for details in regard thereto. Staff's recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VI11 of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the final plat, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission approves the applicant's request for a final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for the relocation of the common property line between Lots 4 and 7, located at 107 and 127 Rockledge Road/Lots 4 and 7, Block 7, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. " Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the final plat, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings: • "The Planning and Environmental Commission finds: • (1) That the subdivision is in compliance with the criteria listed in Sub-section 13-3-4A, Vail Town Code; and (2) That the subdivision is consistent with the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and compatible with the development objectives of the Town; and (3) That the subdivision is compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses and appropriate for the surrounding areas; and (4) That the subdivision promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality." X. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Applicant's Request C. Proposed Site Plan D. Proposed Final Plat E. Public Notice • • 0 e Attachment: B 05.15.06 Planning Environmental fommission Board Rosenbach Renovation This PEL application is to request that a proposed land swap between the Rosenbachs and an adjacent property owner, Vernon Taylor, Jr. be accepted by the board as it has been by both property owners. The land swap is an equal trade of land between the Rosenbach's Lot 1, Block 1, Village First Filing and Mr. Taylor's Lot 4, Block 1, Village First Filing that will require replatting of the lot line between the two lots. • a ~ ~. a~ 3 • .. 11D WEST LIONSHEAD CIRCLE, SUITE A VAII COLORADO 81651 910.411.2990 910.421.2965 (f) www.khwedd.tom MEMBER OF THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITEiiS LOt BA ~ °~~ A'~achment~ G . ~ . ~, ~ ~~ ~~ ~yy r ,~ ~ _ ~,, . , t - `- ,. ~ ~= fi° ~ ~~~. R 1 ~~~~ _' / ~ ~ ~ 1 ~/ ~_ ~ i~, ~;: / ~~. k '` l ~% ~ > ~ ,~ ~~ i ~.~•w• ~ I' i ' / _~ ~,~ ~ _ _ ~.~ ``' ~ ~ ~, ~~ ;oT, ~ -, ,~. / / ~,' ~ ~ I~ ~, / , j~ .<.~~ ~. -- f ~` _ ~' >, ~: / i C y ~ ~ ~ ~ c `` `` _ \' ~' _\ /' ~i ~ ~ / s ~ y ' / ~~~ ~ I I Sri ~~j ~ r r ~ ~~~, - f ~ / ` i ~~l ~ .-,~„ .; ~ ~ O 1 I 4 '', 5 4 1 ______ _ R o S E N~ a C N ~s° R o,se ~~.E~LN~ E ~+ ~ ROCKLEUGE 0~ VA1L ~ - __~ r~- ~ ~ ~ ALT e i i 4~ L___ m ~ i i i i i h ,ebb ° ~ h i 1 ° < < s• ~ ` 95110NN IRMiW4 AWD Y1lSi!'~171!!b l10~ pttachrr'ent: ~ b~ ~~ ~ t1 i ~f ~~ 1 ii ~ ~ F~M~f ~[' 1; F t s E "t'~., ~ Mkt ~~4 ~t{~E q4 4f i t~ ` ~~~ {~ `4 .. t~:tF ``f~f~'~ ~t~ s,! 1~,'' lt~t~i ~}:~~t { ~ , tt~ • I d ~~~~ .~ r~iq N k. ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ g ,~t19 s ~ ~~~~~~~~ Fi tikt~~it ~~ ~ ~ ~ f- ~ t s*!! l~tl t+~tt t ~ ~~~ ti ~ ix ~ ` ~;f.*`~ p d I 'o'~~ ~ V ~~ ~ ~ ~Cr~~ ~~~C~. t ~~ ~ alt .~ ~ ~ t~ t ~ t ~ ~ ~ t~ ~ ~~ Ft ~ .~ 1 x k i =•~ .r ~<< .~ i ~ 1~ ~ ~f `' ` ~~ t 1 • s aR F1~ f Ft t ~ ~ ~~ ~ t ~t t ~~,`~tt i31~ 4~'I~~~f'~t' -~.~ ;t~~ ~~~lt~l~ ~~; ~ ~ ~`t ~~i t ~•~~ ~`# ~t~~~tt~ =j ~ ~` i k t~` 1•t 't fa F e~.li.:.l ~t~ • 4trt~ r ~t~i~t r tf Attachment: E ," THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY • ~~~~i' PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with section 12-3-6, Vail Town Code, on June 12, 2006, at 2:00 pm, in the Town of Vail Municipal Building, in consideration of: Report to the Planning and Environmental Commission of an administrative action approving a request for a minor amendment to SDD No. 6, Vail Village Inn, pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for modifications to the approved building plans for the Vail Village Inn Phase V (La Bottega), 100 East Meadow Drive/Lot M, Block 5D, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0036) Applicant: Staufer Commercial, LLC and Steve Virion, represented by K.H. Webb Architects Planner: Warren Campbell A request for a final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-7H-5, Conditional Uses, Generally (On All Levels of a Building or Outside of a Building), to allow for the relocation of the Lionshead Climbing Wall to the Lionshead Sundial Plaza, located at Tract C, Vail Lionshead Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0037) Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Charlie Alexander, LMG Inc. Planner: Elisabeth Reed • A request for a final review of a final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for the relocation of the common property line between Lots 4 and 7, located at 107 and 127 Rockledge Road/Lots 4 and 7, Block 7, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0038) Applicant: Gary Rosenbach and Vernon Taylor, represented by K.H. Webb Architects PC Planner: Bill Gibson A request for a final review of an amendment to an Approved Development Plan, to allow for an increase in Gross Residential Floor Area for Lot 6; and a request for a final review of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to amend the allowable Gross Residential Floor Area within the Eleni Zneimer Subdivision located at 1701 F Buffehr Creek Road/Lot 6, Eleni Zneimer Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0039) Applicant: Patrick and Patricia Ranallo, represented by RAL Architects Planner: Warren Campbell The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call 970-479-2138 for additional information. m~~n Y • Sign language interpretation is available upon request, with 24-hour notification. Please call 970-479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Published May 26, 2006, in the Vail Daily. t l i PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING • t May 22, 2006 Z7liV:V OF YAfI, ' PROJECT ORIENTATION -Town Council Chambers -PUBLIC WELCOME 2:00 pm LUNCH WILL NOT BE SERVED MEMBERS PRESENT Chas Bernhardt Doug Cahill Dick Cleveland Rollie Kjesbo Bill Pierce Public Hearing -Town Council Chambers MEMBERS ABSENT Bill Jewitt Anne Gunion 2:00 pm 1. A request fora recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, and Section 2.8, Adoption and Amendment of the Master Plan, Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, to allow for amendments to Articles 12-7H, Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District, and 12-71, Lionshead Mixed Use 2 District, Vail Town Code, and the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, to require no net loss of parking, no net loss of employee housing units and no net loss of accommodation units in Lionshead Mixed Use 1 and Lionshead Mixed Use 2 Districts, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0028) Applicant: Town of Vail • Planner: George Ruther ACTION: Tabled to June 12, 2006 MOTION: Bernhardt SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE: 5-0-0 George Ruther presented an overview of the request and the staff memorandum. Bill Pierce noted a conflict of interest if this item is discussed solely in regard to the Lionshead Inn and the old VailGlo Lodge and not as a general policy. George Ruther clarified that this item was a general policy discussion applicable to all of Lionshead. Doug Cahill asked George to clarify the recent Town Council direction. George Ruther noted that the Town Council direction was to create a "no net loss of accommodation units" policy for Lionshead and this policy discussion is broader than the initial thought on simply requiring no-net-loss of hotel rooms. This policy discussion focuses on maintaining and increasing all forms of live beds in Lionshead, as articulated in the master plan. Chas Bernhardt asked George Ruther to clarify how some of the proposed amendments would apply to specific situations. Dick Cleveland asked George Ruther to clarify the correlation between an accommodation unit and the number of beds. Dick noted that the number of beds is the true concern, and not necessarily the number of units. • Page 1 Bill Pierce and Chas Bernhardt noted that the market will determine the appropriate number of beds in each unit. George Ruther noted that no-net-loss has not been clarified to mean the Lionshead area or in an • individual building. It is believed to apply to individual buildings, however. Bill Pierce noted the need for permanent residents in the Lionshead area, and is concerned about the unintended consequence of discouraging such residence. Dick Cleveland and Rollie Kjesbo noted their concerns about considering voluntary rental dwelling units as live beds if the goal is to preserve true hotel rooms (ie, accommodation units). George Ruther noted that the LMU-1 zoning does not require a mixed use development. A single use building such as the Ritz Carlton is currently permitted. He also noted that "lodge dwelling units" allowed by zoning have not yet been constructed. Doug Cahill noted that the use of any of the allowed units depends upon.the management of the property and the market. There is an importance to the presence of hotel amenities in all projects. Jim Lamont asked George Ruther to clarify the Council's policy direction and some specific elements of the request. George Ruther and Russ Forest clarified the direction. Jim Lamont noted that the LMU-1 zoning is too wide open and does not capture any one specific goal of the master plan. He believes the Council and the PEC need to look more closely at the broader issues and we are going down the path of the Village from the 1970's with a dead downtown environment. Dominic Mauriello, representing Lionshead Inn (Bill Pierce left the room during this discussion) noted • that the master plan purposely never included a no-net-loss of hotel rooms policy. The only no-net- loss policy only applied to parking with a possible redevelopment of the Lionshead Parking structure and employee housing units at the Sunbird Building. He also noted that the majority of the hot beds in Lionshead are not hotel rooms. These non-hotel beds have a higher occupancy rate than the hotel beds. He also noted that hotel rooms and fractional fee units receive significant incentives in the LMU zoning. He also noted a concern about equity in that only three properties will be required to maintain hotels in all of Lionshead. He noted that only the core site is recommended as a mixed use hotel building in the master plan. It is unfair to allow the Ritz to build all condominiums and only allow hotels in other buildings within the same zone district. He noted that the Evergreen voluntarily agreed to a no-net-loss hotel room policy when they requested a rezoning to LMU, which is very different than other properties that have been zoned LMU for several years and are only now restricted to maintaining hotel rooms. Dick Cleveland noted his concern about specifically naming projects in the proposed amendments instead of a general policy change. Dick recommended changing the proposed text to reflect a no- net-loss of live beds policy. He interpreted the Council's direction as maintaining only one of the live bed products (i.e. accommodation units). He is not an advocate of transfer of development rights. Rollie Kjesbo agreed with Dick in obtaining clearer Council direction of only maintaining hotel rooms or is this discussion about maintaining live beds. He believes the different types of live beds work well in Lionshead. Bill Pierce recommended a policy of allowing permanent resident in the core areas. He is in favor of maintaining live beds, not accommodation units. He believes the policy needs to apply to the entire district and the "opportunity" should not be borne by only one or two buildings. Page 2 :~ Chas Bernhardt noted the need for permanent residents and the need for chain based hotel • products to meet market demands. He acknowledged that many rental condominiums work well, but requiring hotels may be necessary. Doug Cahill suggested working further to define live beds, instead of only focusing on accommodation units. He also recommended further analysis of which products currently are working best. He recommended exploring a policy of requiring live beds in the new development projects. He noted his concerns about voluntary rental programs. George Ruher noted the Staff's concern that this policy is not as simple as only requiring a no-net- loss of hotel rooms and the disconnection between the existing master plan policies and the existing zoning regulations. He stated that if the goal was to address Policy 2.3.3 of the master plan, than more should be done than simply attempt to preserve accommodation units. Dominic Mauriello noted that the PEC should give direction to the Council on zoning issues and to not simply parrot back what the Council wants. Dick Cleveland repeated his desire for further direction from the Council. Bill Pierce does not want to just patch a small hole without examining this issues in their entirety. 2. A request for a variance from Section 12-6D-9, Site Coverage, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a residential addition, located at 1100 Hornsilver Circle/Lot 7, Block 1, Vail Village Filing 8, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06- 0033) • Applicant: Phillip and Jennifer Maritz, represented by Fritzlen Pierce Architects Planner: Matt Gennett ACTION: Tabled to June 12, 2006 MOTION: Cleveland SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE: 5-0-0 A request for a final review of a variance, from Section 12-6B-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for a garage addition within the front setback, located at 1462 Aspen Grove Lane/Lot 11, Block 2, Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing 4, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0034) Applicant: Matthew and Doris Gobec, represented by John M. Perkins, AIA Planner: Matt Gennett ACTION: Tabled to June 12, 2006 MOTION: Cleveland SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE: 5-0-0 4. A request for a final review of a variance, from Section 12-6D-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for a new single family residence within the front and side setbacks, located at 1740 Sierra Trail/Lot 22, Vail Village West Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0015) Applicant: Lois Solis, represented by Michael Suman Architect Planner: Matt Gennett ACTION: Tabled to June 12, 2006 MOTION: Cleveland SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE: 5-0-0 5. A request fob a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of an amendment to the Lionshead • Redevelopment lvlaster Plan, pursuant to Section 2.8, Adoption and Amendment of the Master Plan, Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, to amend the Lionshead Study Area Boundaries and Chapter 5, Detailed Plan Recommendations, to include the study "West Lionshead" area, Page 3 generally located at 646, 862, 890, 923, 934, 953, 1000, and 1031 South Frontage Road West/Lot 54 and Tract K of Glen Lyon Subdivision, Tracts C and D, Vail Village Filing 2, and several unplatted parcels (a more complete legal description is available at the Community Development Department), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0008) Applicant: Vail Resorts Development Company, Town of Vail, and Glen Lyon Office Building General Partnership Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Tabled to June 26, 2006 MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Cleveland VOTE: 5-0-0 6. A request for a final review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7H-7, Major Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the renovation of the Lion's Square Lodge North, located at 660 West Lionshead Place/Lot 8, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0019) Applicant: Lion Square Lodge North Condominium Association, represented by Viele Development Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Tabled to June 26, 2006 MOTION: Cleveland SECOND: Bernhardt VOTE: 4-0-0 (Kjesbo absent) Bill Gibson noted that the applicant has recently met with representative from the Montaneros and the applicant is working on revisions to the proposed redevelopment of the Lion Square Lodge North Building. The applicant wanted to show the PEC their recently created 3D model and update the PEC on what revisions will be presented at the PEC's next hearing. David Viele and Chip Melick presented the 3D model and described draft revisions being designed in response to the concerns of the Montaneros owners. The Commission viewed the 3D model and informed the applicant that additional views of the model and/or other drawings will be needed for final review of the project. Alex Prieser noted his objection to the presentation because of confusion about whether or not the item was tabled to the June 26, 2006, hearing. 7. Approval of May 8, 2006 minutes MOTION: Cleveland SECOND: Pierce and Bernhardt abstained) 8. Information Update 9. Adjournment MOTION: Cleveland SECOND: Bernhardt VOTE: 3-0-1 (Kjesbo absent VOTE: 4-0-0 The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24-hour notification. Please call (970) 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department /Published May 19, 2006, in the Vail Daily. r1 U • • Page 4 • 1620 PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF EAGLE SS. I, Steve Pope, do solemnly swear that I am a qualified representative of the Vail Daily. That the same Daily newspaper printed, in whole or in part and published in the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, and has a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been published continuously and uninterruptedly in said County of Eagle for a period of more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement and that said newspaper has Published the requested legal notice and advertisement as requested. The Vail Daily is an accepted legal advertising medium, only for jurisdictions operating under Colorado's Home Rule provision. That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in the regular and entire issue of every number of said daily newspaper for the period of 1 consecutive insertions; and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated May 26 A.D. 2006 and that the last publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated May 26 A.D. 2006. i ~~ In witness whereof has here unto set my hand this 23rd day June, 2006 Publis~f/~~neral I~ana~r/Editor Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado this 23rd of June, 2006. .pFtY i ~ .P . qME • s SCHULTZ. • ~ 9 ~ '~ ~~ i i ame a Joan Schultz Notary Public My Commission expires: November 1, 2007 THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROP- ERTY PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with section 12-3-6, Vail Town Code, on June 12, 2006, at 2:00 ' pm, in the Town of Vail Municipal Building, in con- sideration ot: Report to the Planning and Environmental Com- mission of an administrative action approving a re- quest for a minor amendment to SDD No. 6, Vail Village Inn, pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Amend- ment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for modifications to the approved building plans for the Vail Village Inn Phase V (La Bottega), 100 East Meadow Drive/Lot M, Block SD, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto (PEC06-0036) Applicant: Staufer Commercial, LLC and Steve Virion, represented by K.H. Webb Architects Planner Warren Campbell A request for a final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-7H-5, Conditions! Uses, Generally (On All Levels of a Building or Outside of a Building), to allow for the relocation of the Lionshead Climbing Wall to the Lionshead Sundial Plaza, located at Tract C, Vail Lionshead ' Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0037) Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Chadie Alexander, LMG Inc. Planner: Elisabeth Reed A request for a final review of a final plat, pursuant to Chapter 73-12, Exemption Plat Review Proce- dures, Vail Town Cotle, to allow for the relocation of the common property line between Lots 4 and 7, located at 707 and 127 Rockledge RoadJLOts 4 and 7, Block 7, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth tletails in regard thereto. {PEC06-0038) Applicant: Gary Rosenbach and Vemon Taylor, represented by K.H. Webb Architects PC Planner. Bill Gibson A request for a final review of an amendment to an Approved Development Plan, to allow for an in- crease in Gross Residential Floor Area for Lot 6: and a request for a final review of an amended fi- nal plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to amend the allowable Gross Residential Floor Area within the Eleni Zneimer Subdivision located at 1701E Buffehr Creek Road/LOt 6, Eleni Zneimer Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. {PECA6-0039) Applicant: Patrick and Patricia Ranallo, repre- sented by RAL Architects Planner. Warren Campbell The applications and information about the propos- als are available for public inspection during office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vaii Community Development Department. Please call 970-479-2138 for additional informa- tion. Sign language interpretation is available upon re- quest, with 24-hour notification. Please call 970- 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Published May 26, 2006, in the Vail Daily • • 1622 • PROOF OF PUBLICATION ~.~..,,~„" STATE OF COLORADO } PLANNI ~o~~ MENTAL C~ PUBLIC MEETING 5.7. June 12, 2008 COUNTY OF EAGLE } Town Council CIhTATiON - PUBLICWELCOME 12:00 pm MEMBERS PRESENT , I, Steve Pope, do solemnly swear that I am a qualified representative of the Vail Daily. That the same MEMBERSABSEN Daily newspaper printed, in whole or in part and published in the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, and site visits: has a eneral circulation therein; that said news a er has been ublished continuousl and 1. Gobec Residence- 1462 Aspen Grove Lane g P P P Y 2.,Timberline Roost Lodge - 1783 North Frontage uninterru tedl in said Count of Ea le fora eriod of more than fift -two consecutive weeks next rior Road P y Y g P Y P 3.,Lionshead Climbing Wall -Lionshead Sundial to the first ublication of the annexed le al notice or advertisement and that said news a er has Plaza ' P g P P 4. Rosenbach Residence - 103 & 107 Rockledge i Published the requested legal notice and advertisement as requested. v°ver: George = The Vail Daily is an accepted legal advertising medium, only for jurisdictions operating under Public Hearing-Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm ~ I Colorado's Home Rule provision. 10 minutes ; i 1. A request for a final review of a condi' tional use permft, pursuant to Section 12-7H-5~ i That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in the regular and entire issue of every Conditional uses, Generally (On All Levels of Building or Outside of a Building), to allow for th relocation of the Lionshead Climbing Wall to th number of said daily newspaper for the period of 1 consecutive insertions; and that the first publication of Lionshead Sundial Plaza, located at Tract C, veil Lionshead Filing 1, and setting forth details in rerj i gard thereto. (PEC06-0037) said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated June 09 A.D. 2006 and that the last publication of Applicant: Town of Vail, represent 'I ed by Charlie Alexander, LMG Inc. ,l Planner. Elisabeth Reed ~ q said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated June 09 A.D. 2000. ACTION: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: ,' 20 minutes 2. A request for a final review of an , amendment to an Approved Development Plan, to ' In witness whereof has here unto set my hand this 23rd day June, 2006 /t allow for an increase in Gross Residential Floor / Area for Lot 6; and a request for a final review of an amended tinal plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Publish eral ~an er ltor Code, to amend the allowable Gross Residential Floor Area within the Eleni Zneimer Subdivision lo- cated at 1701 F Buffehr Creek Road/Lot 6, Eleni Zneimer Subdivision, and setting Torth details ' Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado this in regard thereto. (PECOS-0039) Applicant: Painck and Patricia Ra- 23rd Hallo, represented by RAL Architects of June, 2006. Planner: Warren Campbell ,~ ACTION: ~ MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 10 minutes ., n~„ 9, /„ 3. A request for a final recommendation Ll...t,~- to the Vail Town Council, pursuam to Section 12-3- 7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for Pamela Joan S ultz amendments to Section 12-7H-5, Conditional PRY pV Uses; Generally (On all Levels of a Bulking or •••••••• l~lotary b11C Outside of a Building), to allow for seasonal use ar -~O~ • : ~~ structures as a conditional use in Lionshead Mixed ~ • •• ~ Use i District; Section 12-7H-18, Mitigation of De- • ~ velopment Impacts, to clarify the inclusion of em- ~ ~ My Commission expires: November 1, 2007 ployee housing as a mittgat~on of development im- i • PAMELA J. • pacKS; Section 12-aA-3, Conditional Uses, to allow • • • for ski runs as a conditional use in the Agricukural • ~ and Open Space District; Section 12-SC-3, Condi- • SC1iULTZ • tional Uses, to allow for ski lifts not including i ~ loading and unloading areas as a corditonal use tn,•• • of the Natural Area Preservation District; %- •• ••• ~ Subsection 12-18-58, Density Control, to clarify '9~••••• ••••~ limitations on structures which do not ......:...... to ~y. ~,y density contrds; Chapter 14-3, Residential Access, CPAXLP • • • Driveway and Parldrtg Standards, to darity standards for access, driveway and peridrg for Commercial propertles; and ChepFer 11-6, Gradmg St:..,;..., b clarify requ'tremertts for re- tainrog walls, VaN Town Code. and aettltg fortft details m regard thereto. (PECO6-0026) Applicam: Town of Vail Planner: Rachel Frieda ACTION: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 20 minutes 4. A request for a worksession to review a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12- 7J-12, Major Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of the Timberline Lodge, located at 1783 North Frontage Road/Lots 9-12, Buffehr Creek Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC05- OOSC) Applicant: Timberline Roost Lodge, LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: George Ruther ACTION: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 15 minutes 5. A request for a final review of a var- iance, from Section 12-6B-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to al- low for a garage addition within the front setback, located at 1462 Aspen Grove Lane/Lot 11, Block 2, Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing 4, and settin forth details in regard thereto. (PECO6-0034 Applicant: Matthew and Doris Go- bec, represented by John M. Perkins, AIA Planner: Matt Gannett ACTION: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 45 minutes 6. A request for a worksession to dis- cuss proposed amendments to Chapters 12-21, Hazard Regulations, 14-7, GeologidEnvironmental Hazards, and 14-10, Design Review Standards and Guidelines, Vail Town Code, to adopt Wildfire Regulations and a Wildfire Hazard Map that will require mitigation of high and extreme wildfire haz- ard zones in the Town of Vail, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PECO6-0029) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Rachel Frieda ACTION: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 10 rNttutes 7. Report to the Planning and Environ- mental Commission of an administrative action ap- pprrowng arequest for a minor amendment to SDD No. 6, Vail Village Inn, pursuant to Section 12-9A- 10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Cade, to allow for modifications to the approved ~tildmg Ptans for the Vail Village Inn Phase V (La Botteca), 100 East Meadow Drive/Lot M, Block 5D, Vail Vllage Filingp 1, and setting forth details in re- §ard thereto. (PEC06.0036) Applicant: Staufer Commercial, LLC and Steve Virion, represented by K.H. Webb Architects Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 10 tiMnutes 8. A request for a final review of a final t, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat eview Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for the rekocation of the common property line be- tween Lots 4 and 7, located 703 and 107 Rock- ledge Road/Lots 4 and 7, Black 7, Vail Village Fil- ih~erelo. (PECOB-00398] ~ forth details in regard Applicant: Gary Rr,...:~.:i and tech PCT Planr ~Gibaon ~ Ardri- ACTtON: A.,,..,,,J: SECOND: VOTE: 9. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, and Section 2.8, Adoption and Amendment of the Master Plan, Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, to allow for amendments to Articles 12-7H, Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District, and 12-71, Lionshead Mixed Use 2 District, Vail Town Code, and the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, to regwre no net loss of parking, no net loss of employee housing units and no net loss of accommodation units in Lions- head Mixed Use 1 and Lionshead Mixed Use 2 Districts, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PECO6-0028) Applicant:' Town of Vail Planner: George Ruther /Rachel Frieda ACTION: Table to June 26, 2006 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 10. A request for a final review of a var- iance, from Section 12-6D-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, pursuam to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to al- low for a new single family residence within the front and side setbacks, located at 1740 Sierra Trail/Lot 22, Vail Village West Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PECO6-0015) Applicam: Lois Solis, represented by Michael Suman Architect Planner: Matt Gannett ACTION: Table to June 26, 2006 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 11. A request for a final review of a var- iance from Section 12-6D-9, Site Coverage, pur- suant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a residential addition, located at 1100 Hornsilver Circle/Lot 7, Block 1, Vail Village Filingg 8, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PECO6-0033) Applicant: Phillip and Jennifer Mar- itz, represented by Fritzlen Pieme Architects Planner: Matt Gannett ACTION: WITHDRAWN 12. Approval of May 22, 2006 minutes MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 13. Information Update E Project Orientation 14. AdJ'ournmeM MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: The applications and information about the propos- als are available for public inspection during regu- lar office hours at the Town of Vail Community De- velopment Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orienta- tion and the site visits that precede the public hear- ing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call (970) 479-2138 for addi- tional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon re- quest with 24-hour notfficafion. Please call (970) 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. t..ommuniry Devekopmertt C :, ;, . t Published June 9, 2006, in the VeA Deily. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING • _ ,. June 26, 2006 1Cr~NUF VAACG' , PROJECT ORIENTATION -Town Council Chambers -PUBLIC WELCOME MEMBERS PRESENT Chas Bernhardt Doug Cahill Dick Cleveland Rollie Kjesbo Bill Jewitt Bill Pierce MEMBERS ABSENT Anne Gunion Site Visits: 1. Lion Square Lodge North - 660 West Lionshead Place Driver: George 12:00 pm Public Hearing -Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm 1. A request for a final review of a variance, from Section 12-6D-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for a new single family residence within the front and side setbacks, located at 1740 Sierra Trail/Lot 22, Vail Village West Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0015) Applicant: Lois Solis, represented by Michael Suman Architect Planner: Matt Gennett ACTION: Tabled to July 10, 2006 MOTION: Bernhardt SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE:6-0-0 30 minutes 2. A request for a final review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7H-7, Major Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the renovation of the Lion's Square Lodge North, located at 660 West Lionshead Place/Lot 8, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0019) Applicant: Lion Square Lodge North Condominium Association, represented by Viele Development Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Approved with conditions MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Bernhardt VOTE: 5-1-0 (Cleveland opposed) CONDITIONS: Prior to Application for Building Permits 1) Prior to application for building permits, the developer must obtain Town of Vail Design Review approval of this proposal. 2) Prior to application for building permits, the developer must obtain Town of Vail Public Works Department approval of a construction staging plan for this proposal. • Page 1 3) Prior to application for building permits, the developer must obtain Town of Vail Public Works Department approval of civil engineering construction • plans and off-site improvement plans for this proposal. Prior to Repuestina a Temaorarv Certificate of Occupancv 4) Prior to requesting a temporary certificate of occupancy for this proposal, the developer shall provide one deed-restricted employee housing of no less than 700 sq. ft., with no less than one bedroom, that complies with the Town of Vail Employee Housing requirements (Chapter 12-13, Vail Town Code), and that said restrictions shall be made available for occupancy, prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy. In addition, the deed- restrictions shall be legally executed by the Developer and duly recorded with the Eagle County Clerk & Recorder's Office, prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy. 5) Prior to requesting a temporary certificate of occupancy for this proposal, the developer shall be assessed a transportation impact fee in the amount of $6,500 per increased vehicle trip in the peak hour generated by this proposal. Per the Traffic Study dated June 15, 2006, this major exterior alteration will result in 7 additional vehicle trips in the peak hour. Therefore, the applicant shall pay a transportation impact fee of $45,500. For the Life of the Project 6) For the life of the project, the development shall install, operate and maintain • an approved intelligent transportation sight distance system. This shall include adequate detection devices and warning system. The system shall address all turning movements that have inadequate sight distance. Recommendation to the Vail Town Council 7) The Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval for an amendment to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan build-to-lines to allow the applicant to construct the proposed parking area sod roof within the required setback to allow for a continuous landscape area between Lion Square Lodge North and the Montaneros. Staff presented the application pursuant to the memorandum to the Commission dated, June 26, 2006. The applicant, represented by Chip Melick gave a presentation of the proposed development application, including a 3-D model presentation. David Viele gave a brief presentation of the proposal which included a summary of the proposal's compliance with the prescribed criteria for a major exterior alteration. Chip Glazier, owner within the Montaneros Condominium Association, expressed his concerns with the proposal and emphasized the negative impacts of further construction in Lionshead. Maxine Glazier, owner within the Montaneros Condominium Association, expressed her i concerns with potential negative impacts to the structural integrity of Monteranos building. Page 2 Jack Hunn, representing Vail Resorts Development Company, shared his support for the redevelopment of the Lionshead Square Lodge North major exterior alteration application. • Alex Prieser, representing several Montaneros homeowners, expressed concerns with lack of compliance to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan and the presence of a non- conforming structure. He expressed concerns regarding lack of timely information from the applicant. He also shared concerns regarding easements and the need for further communication. David Viele explained how the application addressed the non-conforming structure issue and the revisions made to the plans since the previous public meeting. Lee Sackna, legal representation for Viele Development, reiterated that the proposal was in compliance with the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. He further explained and responded to the issued raised by the Montaneros owners. Commissioner Cleveland indicated that the application was in compliance with the Lionshead Mixed Use - 1 zone district. He expressed his dissatisfaction with the lack of on-site employee housing and suggested that this application be required to meet its employee housing obligation on-site. Commissioner Jewitt expressed his support for the application as submitted given the proposed conditions of approval. He indicated the need for public art as part of the proposal to mitigate the impacts of development and to improve the pedestrian experience. He further emphasized the need for the exterior colors to remain interesting and vibrant. He recommended that the employee housing requirement must comply with the Town's housing policies. Mr. Jewitt • expressed his support for a Lionshead text amendment to amend the build to line to allow for a completely covered parking structure. Commissioner Kjesbo agreed with the findings expressed in the staff memorandum. He asked that condition #5 be amended to strike the ability for Public Works to waive the traffic impact fee and proposed that an additional fee be assessed for South Frontage Road improvements. Commissioner Pierce had no additional comments. Commissioner Bernhardt expressed his support for the application and reiterated the many of the comments of the other Commission members. Chairman Cahill shared his support for the application given its compliance with the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. He shared his belief that additional contributions were needed for the AIPP program. He suggested and forwarded his support for a master plan amendment to the Vail Town Council for changes to the build to lines to create a better transition between property lines. David Viele responded to the input provided by the Commission. Mr. Viele was generally supportive of the Commission's input. 20 minutes 3. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, and Section 2.8, Adoption and Amendment of the Master Plan, • Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, to allow for amendments to Articles 12-7H, Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District, and 12-71, Lionshead Mixed Use 2 District, Vail Town Code, and the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, to require no net loss of parking, no net loss of Page 3 employee housing units and no net loss of accommodation units in Lionshead Mixed Use 1 and Lionshead Mixed Use 2 Districts, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0028) • Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: George Ruther ACTION: Approved with conditions MOTION: Jewitt SECOND: Bernhardt VOTE: 5-0-1 (Pierce recused) CONDITIONS: Bill Pierce noted his conflict of interest if discussions relate directly to Lionshead Inn and are not a general discussion. George Ruther presented an overview of the request and the staff memorandum. Russ Forest presented an overview of the Staff's discussions with the Town Council at its June 2ND public hearing. George Ruther discussed the economic impacts of hotels, fractional fees, etc. He distributed a 2003 memorandum addressing the issue. He reinforced the need for a diversity of lodging types. Bill Pierce recused himself when the discussion focused on identifying and regulating specific properties with existing accommodation units. Doug Cahill asked for clarification of the impacts of these amendments on voluntary dwelling unit/fractional fee rental programs. George Ruther clarified how these programs are addressed. • Dominic Mauriello, representing Lionshead Inn, noted their general agreement with the staff memorandum with some minor clarifications. He noted their support of addressing "live beds" instead of "accommodation units.' He noted concern that these discussions need to apply to all projects in Lionshead. He also gave a brief summary of the type of redevelopment they will be proposing. Dick Cleveland suggested not including a specific list of development projects with accommodation units. Instead some "no net loss of accommodation units" language should be added. The existing accommodation units should not be replaced with any other type of "live bed", because "live beds" are not guaranteed to be rental units. He also recommended maintaining the existing "live beds" and creating incentives for additional "live beds". Bill Jewitt suggested eliminating all reference to "accommodation units" and only addressing "live beds". He agreed that specific projects should not be referenced. He discussed the likely use of fractional fee units and dwelling units during the off-season, when a pure accommodation unit will be vacant. He recommended keeping flexibility in the Town Code. He recommended "live beds" instead of "accommodation units." The concern isn't just having any guest in a bed, but the type of guest in that bed. Rollie Kjesbo recommends using the term "live beds" and more flexibility. He agreed with Dick Cleveland's concern about guaranteeing rental of dwelling units. George Ruther noted that if the intent of the LMU districts is for mixed use development or accommodation rooms, then the Town needs to require mixed uses and require accommodation uses. He recommended adding intent statements to the proposed text. Page 4 Dominic Mauriello noted his client's desire to have a specific policy for their property to provide assurance as to their development requirements. He also wants this issue to move to a vote so • the development moratorium can be lifted. Doug Cahill noted that the Town does not want to lose the short-term availability of some form of units. 4. A request for a worksession to review a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7J-12, Major Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of the Timberline Lodge, located at 1783 North Frontage Road/Lots 9-12, Buffehr Creek Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC05-0080) Applicant: Timberline Roost Lodge, LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: George Ruther ACTION: Table to July 10, 2006 MOTION: Bernhardt SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE:6-0-0 5. A request for a worksession to discuss proposed amendments to Chapters 12-21, Hazard Regulations, 14-7, Geologic/Environmental Hazards, and 14-10, Design Review Standards and Guidelines, Vail Town Code, to adopt Wildfire Regulations and a Wildfire Hazard Map that will require mitigation of high and extreme wildfire hazard zones in the Town of Vail, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0029) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Rachel Friede ACTION: Table to July 10, 2006 MOTION: Bernhardt SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE:6-0-0 • 6. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of an amendment to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, pursuant to Section 2.8, Adoption and Amendment of the Master Plan, Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, to amend the Lionshead Study Area Boundaries and Chapter 5, Detailed Plan Recommendations, to include the study "West Lionshead" area, generally located at 646, 862, 890, 923, 934, 953, 1000, and 1031 South Frontage Road West/Lot 54 and Tract K of Glen Lyon Subdivision, Tracts C and D, Vail Village Filing 2, and several unplatted parcels (a more complete legal description is available at the Community Development Department), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0008) Applicant: Vail Resorts Development Company, Town of Vail, and Glen Lyon Office Building General Partnership Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Table to August 14, 2006 MOTION: Bernhardt SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE:6-0-0 7. Approval of June 12, 2006 minutes MOTION: Jewitt SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE: 5-0-1 (Pierce absent) 8. Information Update • Project Orientation • Meeting times, eliminating worksessions, memos prior to Friday's, etc. • Community Plan 9. Adjournment MOTION: Jewitt SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE: 5-0-1 (Pierce absent) • The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular Page 5 office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional • information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24-hour notification. Please call (970) 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published June 23, 2006, in the Vail Daily. • • Page 6 • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 26, 2006 SUBJECT: A request for a final review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12- 7H-7, Major Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the renovation of the Lion Square Lodge North, located at 660 West Lionshead Place/Lot 8, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0019) Applicant: Lion Square Lodge North Condominium Association, represented. by Viele Development, LLC Planner: Bill Gibson SUMMARY The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning~~~••-and Environmentai Commission approves with conditions the request for a final review of • a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7H-7, Major Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the renovation of the Lion Square Lodge North, located at 660 West Lionshead Place/Lot 8, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The Lion Square Lodge North, located at 660 West Lionshead Place, is zoned Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District (LMU-1 ), and is located within the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan area. A vicinity map identifying the location of the development site has been attached for reference (Attachment A). The applicant is requesting approval of a Major Exterior Alteration to allow for the construction of 9 new dwelling units; 650 sq. ft. of new retail space; a new fitness center for owners/guests; 53 total structured and surface parking spaces; a significant re-face of the existing building exterior; and re-landscaping of the development site. The applicant's zoning calculations (Attachment B), the applicant's master plan compliance analysis (Attachment C), the applicant's summary of mitigations of development impacts (Attachment D), the applicant's proposed employee housing mitigation (Attachment E), the applicant's letter about communication with adjacent property owners (Attachment F) and proposed architectural plans (Attachment G) have all been attached for reference. Additionally, correspondences to the Commission from property owners within the Montaneros Condominium Association have also been attached for reference (Attachment H). III. BACKGROUND The Lion Square Lodge North site was annexed into the Town of Vail in August of 1969. At an undetermiend point in time, the Lion Square Lodge North development site was subdivided from the Montaneros Condominium Association property. Based upon the original development plans and associated documentation, the existing Lion Square Lodge North was originally named the "Montaneros II". According to Eagle County records, the existing 27 dwelling unit Lion Square Lodge North was originally constructed in 1974. According to Town of Vail records, a temporary Certificate of Occupancy was issued in April of 1975 and the final Certificate of Occupancy was issued in July of 1976. Only minor repairs and renovations have occurred since the original construction. The property was originally zoned Commercial Core 2 District (CC2) and was rezoned to Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District (LMU-1) in .-:~«+p,tl~= 1999. The Planning and Environmental Commission conceptually reviewed this proposal at its May 8, and May 22, 2006, hearings. At these hearings, the Staff presented the _ _. Commission a summary of the zoning code and master plan provisions that are applicable to the review of this proposal and the applicant presented a general overview of the proposal. IV. ROLES OF THE REVIEWING BOARDS ,i~w;:~::~t.~f~l~(l~~; The purpose of this section of the .memorandum is to clarify the responsibilities of the Design Review Board, Planning and Environmental Commission, Town Council, and Staff in review this major exterior alteration application: Order of Review: Generally, applications will be reviewed first by the Planning and Environmental Commission for impacts of use/development and then by the Design Review Board for compliance of proposed buildings and site planning. Planning and Environmental Commission: Action: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for final approval/denial of a Major/Minor Exterior Alteration. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall review the proposal for compliance with the adopted criteria. The Planning and Environmental Commission's approval "shall constitute approval of the basic form and location of improvements including siting, building setbacks, height, building bulk and mass, site improvements and landscaping. " Design Review Board: Action: The Design Review Board has no review authority on a Major or Minor Exterior Alteration, but must review any accompanying Design Review Board application. Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided and plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines. Staff provides a staff memo containing background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, 2 • and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. Town Council: Actions of Design Review Board or Planning and Environmental Commission may be appealed to the Town Council or by the Town Council. Town Council evaluates whether or not the Planning and Environmental Commission or Design Review Board erred with approvals or denials and can uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the board's decision. V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS The following checklist was created to provide a means of evaluating the Lion Square Lodge North proposal for compliance with the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. The checklist is intended for the Planning and Environmental Commission to use in conjunction with their copies of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan to locate relevant portions of the Master Plan which pertain to this proposal. Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan Chapter 2: Introduction Chapter 4: Master Plan Recommendations -Overall study Area-, -- -.~.<:k S ~ Chapter 5, Detailed Plan Recommendations Chapter 6, Site Design Guidelines Chapter 7, Design Standards Chapter 8, Architectural Design Guidelines Zonina Reaulations Lionshead Mixed Use -1 Zone District 12-7H-1: PURPOSE: The Lionshead Mixed Use-1 zone district is intended to provide sites for a mixture of multiple-family dwellings, lodges, hotels, fractional fee clubs, time shares, lodge dwelling units, restaurants, offices, skier services, and commercial establishments in a clustered, unified development. Lionshead Mixed Use 1 zone district, in accordance with the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses and to maintain the desirable qualities of the District by establishing appropriate site development standards. This District is meant to encourage and provide incentives for redevelopment in accordance with the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. • This Zone District was specifically developed to provide incentives for properties to redevelop. The ultimate goal of these incentives is to create an economically vibrant lodging, housing, and commercial core area. The incentives in this Zone District include increases in allowable gross residential floor area, building height, and density over the previously established zoning in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan study area. 3 The primary goal of the incentives is to create economic conditions favorable to inducing private redevelopment consistent with the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Additionally, the incentives are created to help finance public off-site improvements adjacent to redevelopment projects. With any developmenbredevelopment proposal taking advantage of the incentives created herein, the following amenities will be evaluated: streetscape improvements, pedestrian/bicycle access, public plaza redevelopment, public art, roadway improvements, and similar improvements. 12-7H-2: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES; BASEMENT OR GARDEN LEVEL: A. Definition: The "basement" or "garden level" shall be defined as that floor of a building that is entirely or substantially below grade. 8. Permitted Uses: The following uses shall be permitted in basement or garden levels within a structure: Banks and financial institutions. Commercial ski storage. Eating and drinking establishments. Personal services and repair shops. Professional offices, business offices and studios. Public or private lockers and storage. Recreation facilities. Retail establishments. Skier ticketing, ski school, skier services, and daycare. Travel agencies. Additional uses determined to be similar to permitted uses described in this subsection, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-3-4 of this Title. C. Conditional Uses: The following uses shall be permitted in basement or garden levels within a structure, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title: Conference facilities and meeting rooms. Liquor stores. Lodges and accommodation units. Major arcade. Multiple-family residential dwelling units, time-share units, fractional fee clubs, lodge dwelling units, and employee housing units (Type 111 (EHU) as provided in Chapter 13 of this Title). Radio, TV stores, and repair shops. Theaters. Additional uses determined to be similar to conditional uses described in this subsection, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-3-4 of this Title. 12-7H-3: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES; FIRST FLOOR OR STREET LEVEL: A. Definition: The "first floor" or "street level" shall be defined as that floor of the • building that is located at grade or street level along a pedestrianway. 8. Permitted Uses: The following uses shall be permitted on the first floor or street level within a structure: 4 • Banks, with walk-up teller facilities. Eating and drinking establishments. Recreation facilities. Retail stores and establishments. Skier ticketing, ski school, skier services, and daycare. Travel agencies. Additional uses determined to be similar to permitted uses described in this subsection, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-3-4 of this Title. C. Conditional Uses: The following uses shall be permitted on the first floor or street level floor within a structure, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title: Barbershops, beauty shops and beauty parlors. Conference facilities and meeting rooms. Financial institutions, other than banks. Liquor stores. Lodges and accommodation units. Multiple-family residential dwelling units, time-share units, fractional fee clubs, lodge dwelling units, and employee housing units (Type 111 (EHU) as provided in Chapter 13 of this Title). Radio, TV stores, and repair shops. Additional uses determined to be similar to conditional uses described in this • subsection, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-3-4 of this Title 12-7H-4: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES; SECOND FLOOR AND ABOVE: A. Permitted Uses; Exception: The following uses shall be permitted on those floors above the first floor within a structure: Lodges and accommodation units. Multiple-family residential dwelling units, time-share units, fractional fee clubs, lodge dwelling units, and employee housing units (Type 111 (EHU) as provided in Chapter 13 of this Title). Additional uses determined to be similar to permitted uses described in this subsection, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-3-4 of this Title. B. Conditional Uses: The following uses shall be permitted on second floors and higher above grade, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title: Banks and financial institutions. Conference facilities and meeting rooms. Eating and drinking establishments. Liquor stores. Personal services and repair shops. Professional offices, business offices and studios. • Radio, TV stores, and repair shops. Recreation facilities. Retail establishments. Skier ticketing, ski school, skier services, and daycare. Theaters. Time-share units and fractional fee clubs. • Additional uses determined to be similar to conditional uses described in this subsection, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-3-4 of this Title. 12-7H-5: CONDITIONAL USES; GENERALLY (ON ALL LEVELS OF A BUILDING OR OUTSIDE OF A BUILDING): The following conditional uses shall be permitted, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title: Bed and breakfast as further regulated by Section 12-14-18 of this Title. Brew pubs. Coin-operated laundries. Cpmmercial storage. Private outdoor recreation facilities, as a primary use. Public buildings, grounds, and facilities. Public or private parking lots. Public park and recreation facilities. Public utility and public service uses. Ski lifts and tows. Television stations. Additional uses determined to be similar to conditional uses described in this subsection, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-3-4 of this Title. 12-7H-6: ACCESSORY USES: The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 zone district: Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-14-12 of this Title. Loading and delivery and parking facilities customarily incidental and accessory to permitted and conditional uses. Minor arcade. Offices, lobbies, laundry, and other facilities customarily incidental and accessory to hotels, lodges, and multiple-family uses. Outdoor dining areas operated in conjunction with permitted eating and drinking establishments. Swimming pools, tennis courts, patios or other recreation facilities customarily incidental to permitted residential or lodge uses. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof. 12-7H-7: EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS OR MODIFICATIONS: A. Review Required: The construction of a new building or the alteration of an existing building that is not a major exterior alteration as described in subsection B of this section shall be reviewed by the design review board in accordance with chapter 11 of this title. 1. Submittal Items Required: The submittal items required for a project that is not a • major exterior alteration shall be provided in accordance with section 12-11-4 of this title. B. Major Exterior Alteration: The construction of a new building or the alteration of an existing building which adds additional dwelling units, accommodation units, fractional 6 • fee club units, timeshare units, any project which adds more than one thousand (1,000) square feet of commercial floor area or common space, or any project which has substantial off site impacts (as determined by the administrator) shall be reviewed by the planning and environmental commission as a major exterior alteration in accordance with this chapter and section 12-3-6 of this title. Any project which requires a conditional use permit shall also obtain approval of the planning and environmental commission in accordance with chapter 16 of this title. Complete applications for major exterior alterations shall be submitted in accordance with administrative schedules developed by the department of community development for planning and environmental commission and design review board review. 1. Submittal Items Required, Major Exterior Alteration: The following submittal items are required: a. Application: An application shall be made by the owner of the building or the building owner's authorized agent or representative on a form provided by the administrator. Any application for condominiumized buildings shall be authorized by the condominium association in conformity with all pertinent requirements of the condominium association's declarations. b. Application; Contents: The administrator shall establish the submittal requirements for an exterior alteration or modification application. A complete list of the submittal requirements shall be maintained by the administrator and filed in the department of community development. Certain submittal requirements maybe waived and/or modified • by the administrator and/or the reviewing body if it is demonstrated by the applicant that the information and materials required are not relevant to the proposed development or applicable to the planning documents that comprise the Vail comprehensive plan. The administrator and/or the reviewing body may require the submission of additional plans, drawings, specifications, samples and other materials if deemed necessary to properly evaluate the proposal. C. Work Sessions/Conceptual Review: If requested by either the applicant or the administrator, submittals may proceed to a work session with the planning and environmental commission, a conceptual review with the design review board, or a work session with the town council. D. Hearing: The public hearing before the planning and environmental commission shall be held in accordance with section 12-3-6 of this title. The planning and environmental commission may approve the application as submitted, approve the application with conditions or modifications, or deny the application. The decision of the planning and environmental commission may be appealed to the town council in accordance with section 12-3-3 of this title. E. Lapse Of Approval: Approval of an exterior alteration as prescribed by this article shall lapse and become void two (2) years following the date of approval by the design review board unless, prior to the expiration, a building permit is issued and construction is commenced and diligently pursued to completion. Administrative extensions shall be allowed for reasonable and unexpected delays as long as code provisions affecting the • proposal have not changed. 12-7H-8: COMPLIANCE BURDEN: It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence before the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Design Review Board that 7 the proposed exterior alteration or new development is in compliance with the purposes • of the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 zone district, that the proposal is consistent with applicable elements of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan and that the proposal does not otherwise have a significant negative effect on the character of the neighborhood, and that the proposal substantially complies with other applicable elements of the Vail comprehensive plan. 12-7H-9: LOT AREA AND SITE DIMENSIONS: The minimum lot or site area shall be ten thousand (10,000) square feet of buildable area. 12-7H-10: SETBACKS: The minimum building setbacks shall be ten feet (10) unless otherwise specified in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan as a build-to line. 12-7H-11: HEIGHT AND BULK: Buildings shall have a maximum average building height of seventy one feet (71) with a maximum height of 82.5 feet, as further defined by the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. All development shall comply with the design guidelines and standards found in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Flexibility with the standard, as incorporated in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, shall be afforded to redevelopment projects which meet the intent of design guidelines, as reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board. 12-7H-12: DENSITY (DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE): • Up to a thirty three percent (33%) increase over the existing number of dwelling units on a property or thirty five (35) dwelling units per acre, whichever is greater shall be allowed. For the purpose of calculating density, employee housing units, accommodation units, time share units, and fractional fee club units shall not be counted as dwelling units. Additionally, a "lodge dwelling unit'; as defined herein, shall be counted as twenty five percent (25%) of a dwelling unit for the purpose of calculating density. A dwelling unit in amultiple-family building may include one attached accommodation unit no larger than one-third (1/3) of the total floor area of the dwelling. 12-7H-13: GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA (GRFA): Up to two hundred fifty (250) square feet of gross residential floor area shall be allowed for each one hundred (100) square feet of buildable site area, or an increase of thirty three percent (33%) over the existing GRFA found on the property, whichever is greater. Multiple-family dwelling units in this zone district shall not be entitled to additional gross residential floor area under the 250 ordinance, section 12-15-5 of this title. 12-7H-14: SITE COVERAGE: Site coverage shall not exceed seventy percent (70%) of the total site area, unless otherwise specified in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. 12-7H-15: LANDSCAPING AND SITE DEVELOPMENT.• At least twenty percent (20%) of the total site area shall be landscaped, unless otherwise specified in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. • • 12-7H-16: PARKING AND LOADING: Off street parking and loading shall be provided in accordance with chapter 10 of this title. At least one-half (1/2) the required parking shall be located within the main building or buildings. 12-7H-17: LOCATION OF BUSINESS ACTT VI TY.~ A. Limitations; Exception: All offices, businesses and services permitted by zone district, shall be operated and conducted entirely within a building, except for permitted unenclosed parking or loading areas, the outdoor display of goods, or outdoor restaurant seating. 8. Outdoor Displays: The area to be used for outdoor display must be located directly in front of the establishment displaying the goods and entirely upon the establishment's own property. Sidewalks, building entrances and exits, driveways and streets shall not be obstructed by outdoor display. • 12-7H-18: MITIGATION OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS: Property owners/developers shall also be responsible for mitigating direct impacts of their development on public infrastructure and in all cases mitigation shall bear a reasonable relation to the development impacts. Impacts may be determined based on reports prepared by qualified consultants. The extent of mitigation and public amenity improvements shall be balanced with the goals of redevelopment and will be determined by the planning and environmental commission in review of development projects and conditional use permits. Mitigation of impacts may include, but is not limited to, the following: roadway improvements, pedestrian walkway improvements, streetscape improvements, stream tract/bank improvements, public art improvements, and similar improvements. The intent of this section is to only require mitigation for large scale redevelopment/developmentprojects which produce substantial off site impacts. VI. ZONING ANALYSIS Address: 660 West Lionshead Place/ Legal Description: Lot 8, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 3 Lot Area: 0.95 acres (41,513 sq. ft.) Zoning: Lionshead Mixed Use 1 (LMU-1) Land Use Designation: Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan Area Development Standard Allowed/Reouired Setbacks All Sides: 10 ft. min. Building Height: 71 ft. avg. 82.5 ft. max. Density (dwelling units): 36 DUs (133% of 27) max. • GRFA: Retail Space: Site Coverage: Landscape Area 103,782 sq.ft. max. N/A 29,059 sq.ft. (70%) max. 8,302 sq.ft. (20%) min. Proposed 10 ft. 52 ft. avg. 78 ft. max. 36 DUs 49,394 sq. ft. 650 sq. ft. 26,509 sq. ft. (64%) 11,100 sq. ft. (27%) Parking: Employee Housing 53 total spaces min (51 DUs + 2 Retail) 1 Type III/IV EHU min VII. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING 53 total spaces 1 Type III/IV EHU (off-site) Land Use Zonina North: Residential Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District South: Mixed Use Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District East: Mixed Use Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District West: Mixed Use Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District VIII. MAJOR EXTERIOR ALTERATION REVIEW CRITERIA Section 12-7H-8, Compliance Burden, Vail Town Code, outlines the review criteria for major exterior alteration applications proposed within the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 (LMU- 1) zone district. According to Section 12-7H-8, Vail Town Code, a major exterior alteration shall be reviewed for compliance with the following criteria: • 1. That the proposed major exterior alteration is in compliance with.th.e:~pu.rposes=~-: A:r.~ _~ata~~aa~ of the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 zone district; . _ - - ~ --~ Staff Response: • The purposes of the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 zone district are stated in Section 12-7H-1, Purpose, Vail Town Code. As stated, the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 zone district is intended to provide sites within the area of Lionshead for a mixture of multiple-family dwellings, hotels, fractional fee clubs, restaurants, skier services and commercial/retail establishments. The development standards prescribed for the district were established to provide incentives for development in accordance with the goals and objectives of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. The applicant is proposing the construction of 9 new dwelling units, 650 sq. ft. of new retail space; a new fitness center for owners/guests; 53 total structured and surface parking spaces; a significant re-face of the existing building exterior; and re-landscaping of the development site. Each of these proposed uses comply with both the stated purpose of the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District and the technical development standards of the district. Therefore, Staff finds that the major exterior alteration application complies with not only the intent of the zone district, but also the development standards of the district. 2. That the proposal is consistent with applicable elements of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan; Staff Response: • Chapter 2: Introduction 10 • Section 2.3 of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan outlines the six policies objectives of the plan: 1) Renewal and Redevelopment Lionshead can and should be renewed and redeveloped to become a warmer, more vibrant environment for guests and residents. Lionshead needs an appealing and coherent identity, a sense of place, a personality, a purpose, and an improved aesthetic character. 2) Vitality and Amenities We must seize the opportunity to enhance guest experience and community interaction through expanded and additional activities and amenities such as performing arts venues, conference facilities, ice rinks, streetscape, parks and other recreational improvements. 3) Stronger Economic Base Through Increased Live Beds In order to enhance the vitality and viability of Vail, renewal and redevelopment in Lionshead must promote improved occupancy rates and the creation of additional bed base ("live beds" or "warm beds') through new lodging products. 4) Improved Access and Circulation R~~i~n tlb~:~4~~zaLr~ The flow of pedestrian, vehicular, bicycle and mass transit traffic must be improved within and through Lionshead. • 5) Improved Infrastructure The infrastructure of Lionshead (streets, walkways, transportation systems, parking, utilities, loading and delivery systems, snow removal and storage capacity) and its public and private services must be upgraded to support redevelopment and revitalization efforts and to meet the service expectations of our guests and residents. 6) Creative Financing for Enhanced Private Profits and Public Revenues Financially creative and fiscally realistic strategies must be identified so that adequate capital maybe raised from all possible sources to fund desired private and public improvements. Staff believes the proposed major exterior alteration conforms to these policy objectives. The proposal will significantly upgrade the architectural and aesthetic quality of the Lion Square Lodge North property in keeping with the identity and character of the adjacent redeveloped properties such as Arrabelle, Marriott, Antlers, and Montaneros. Staff believes the improved pedestrian access, streetscaping, and landscape improvements along the south of the Lion Square Lodge North that are being proposed and that have been coordinated with the Arrabelle project, in addition to a new street level retail space at the east side of the property, will increase the vitality of the Lionshead area adjacent to the Lion Square Lodge North property. • The existing Lion Square Lodge North building is only comprised of dwelling units with no existing accommodation or fractional fee units. However, many of these existing dwelling units are rented to guests and function as "warm beds" (not "hot beds"). The proposed major exterior alteration only includes the construction of additional dwelling units, and as allowed by the provisions of the Lionshead 11 Mixed Use 1 District, no accommodation or fractional fee units are proposed. It • is anticipated that both the existing and new dwelling units will continue to function as "warm beds" in the same manner as the existing Lion Square Lodge North. The Lion Square Lodge North has been, and plans to continue, coordinating with the Arrabelle development project to improve the access, circulation, and infrastructure of Lionshead adjacent to the site. Chapter 4: Master Plan Recommendations Section 4.3 of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan address the physical connection of Lionshead to the natural environment. Sub-Section 4.3.1.1 address the need for the preservation "public" view corridors (none of which exist near this site), but not the preservation of "private" view corridors. Sub-Section 4.3.1.2 recommends a north-south axis orientation for buildings to lessen negative impacts to sun access and mountain views for streets and existing buildings. Staff believes the applicant has addressed this plan recommendation by designing "tower-like" additions to the west and east ends to the existing Lion Square Lodge building. The existing building has an east-west axis orientation which can not be re-oriented without the demolition of the existing building. Staff - ~ >>,-++r~+~F-+•++h~ believes the proposed "tower-like" additions will have much less impact to sun access or views than a zoning compliant design adding building bulk/mass and • height over a larger area, or the entire area, of the existing building. Section 4.6 of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan addresses vehicular and pedestrian circulation. Staff believes the applicant's proposed landscaping and site improvements, plus ongoing coordination with the Arrabelle project improve the vehicular and pedestrian traffic and circulation adjacent to this site. Section 4.8 of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan addresses parking. The proposed major exterior alteration provides sufficient parking for the proposed new uses and remedies an existing non-conforming parking situation for the existing Lion Square Lodge North dwelling units. Section 4.9 of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan addresses housing. The applicant is proposing to mitigate the Lion Square Lodge North's employee housing needs by purchasing and deed-restricting an off-site employee housing unit of no less than 700 sq. ft. and one bedroom in size. The Town of Vail Housing Coordinator has determined that the applicant's proposed mitigation meets the Town's employee housing requirements and is consistent with the mitigation methods approved for other similar re-development projects. Section 4.11 of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan addresses public art. Since the Lion Square Lodge North is not located on the Lionshead "retail mall", the applicant is not proposing any public art at this time. l2 • Chapter 5: Detailed Plan Recommendations Section 5.12 of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan addresses the entirety of the Lion Square Lodge (North, East, and South buildings). This detailed plan recommendation was drafted prior to the review and approval of the Arrabelle development project. In Section 5.12, concerns were noted about the no longer existing vehicular traffic through the Lion Square Lodge site and recommendations were made for an improved pedestrian connection between all the Lion Square Lodge buildings. With the current Arrabelle project, a significant portion of the vehicular circulation through the Lion Square Lodge is now located below grade. The pedestrian connection between all three buildings and the pedestrian connection to the Lionshead ski yard and mall have also been enhanced. Section 5.12 also discusses the screening of parking at the Lion Square Lodge (primarily the East and South building's surface lot). The applicant is proposing to construct below grade structured parking and surface parking with a sod roof cover to screen the new parking. • Chapter 6: Site Design Guidelines The Lion Square Lodge North building has coordinated with the Arrabelle project --,t ~• ~ - to improve the pedestrian circulation and access adjacent to this site. The applicant is proposing sidewalk, landscaping, and lighting consistent with the . Lionshead streetscape design. Chapter 7: Development Standards This proposed major exterior alteration request conforms to the development standards of both the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan and the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District. Chapter 8: Architectural Design Guidelines In addition to the Planning and Environmental Commission's review of a major exterior alteration request, the Town of Vail Design Review Board will also be reviewing this proposal for compliance with both the Town of Vail's general design guidelines and the architectural design guidelines of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Since the Board has conceptually reviewed this proposal and the Board's initial response was very favorable, a more detailed review has tentatively been schedule for July 5, 2006. As this proposal involves the renovation of an existing building, rather than the construction of a new building, the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan requires the review of the applicant's request on "a case-by-case basis, with determination of compliance based upon whether the building meets the general intent of these Guidelines and the tenants described herein" rather than the strict and literal compliance with the guidelines. . Staff believes the applicant's proposal is consistent with the architectural style encouraged by the master plan and the character of the recently developed/re- developed adjacent Antlers, Marriott, Montaneros, and Arrabell. 13 There are several "quantitative criteria" outlined in Chapter 8 of the Lionshead • Redevelopment Master Plan related to building eaves, wall surfaces, wall spans, ridge heights, building materials and colors, and roof dimensions and pitches. This major exterior alteration conforms to the guidelines for wall spans, building materials and colors, roof dimensions, and roof heights. The proposal does not conform to the roof eave heights, roof forms, wall surface, or wall span requirements. Staff believes these deviations are caused by the existing building form and design. Staff believes the applicant's request meets the intent of these guidelines, and is in keeping with the architectural and aesthetic qualities encouraged by the master plan. For example, the entirety of the existing Lion Square Lodge North building has a flat roof. The master plan guide lines require pitched roof buildings with only secondary flat roof elements limited to 500 sq. fit. in size. The proposed new elements of the building (i.e. the two "tower-like" elements) comply with this standard. To upgrade the existing building to meet the intent, not the strict requirement, of this guideline the applicant is proposing to construct new mansard and hipped roofs features. These mansards and hipped roofs will mask the existing large flat roof, give the appearance of a pitched roof building, and improve the overall aesthetic quality of the building. 3. That the proposal does not otherwise have a significant negative:effect..onw~~, .kyou«~~:+~::~ the character of the neighborhood; and, ~ ~ - Staff Response: Staff has reviewed the proposal in an attempt to identify any significant negative impacts that may be created on the character of the neighborhood as a result of the construction of the project. The proposal conforms to the development standards of the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District. Staff believes the proposal is in keeping with the general architectural style encouraged by the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan and the general character of the recently redeveloped adjacent properties including Antlers, Marriottt, Arrabelle, and Montaneros. As with other redevelopment projects in Lionshead, such as the Arrabelle, this proposal will affect sun/shade and the private mountain views of those adjacent properties located to the north. The proposed major exterior alteration will cast more shadow on the adjacent Montaneros building and pool compared to the existing Lion Square Lodge North building. However, the non-conforming, close proximity of the Montaneros building to the Lion Square Lodge North property line (less than 1 foot) and the location of the Montaneros swimming pool patio (6 feet from the property line, 3 feet from the easement) exacerbate the shading effect of this proposal. Staff believes the applicant's two "tower-like" elements will have less impact to sun/shade and private views than other design alternatives allowed by zoning and the Town's Comprehensive Plan. • Neither the Vail Town Code, nor the Vail Comprehensive Plan, regulate or • protect private views. The Planning and Environmental Commission is only charged with preserving "public" view corridors adopted by Chapter 12-22, View Corridors, Vail Town Code. 14 • This proposal is subject to review by the Town of Vail Design Review Board. The Board is charged with ensuring that this proposal complies with both the Town's general design guidelines and the architectural design standards of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Based upon a traffic study prepared by Kimerly Horn, which has been reviewed and approved by the Town of Vail Public Works Department, there will be an increase of 7 vehicle trips to the Lion Square Lodge North site at peak times. The applicant has been assessed a traffic impact fee by the Town of Vail to mitigate this increase in traffic. Staff does not believe this increase of 7 vehicle trips will have a significant negative effect in comparison to existing traffic conditions. In summary, Staff does not believe this proposal will have a significant negative effect upon the character of the neighborhood; instead this proposed major exterior alteration will redevelop the Lion Square Lodge North to be more in keeping with the intent of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. 4. That the proposal substantially complies with other applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan. - Staff Resaonse: ~~r:~~re~ra~r~w~- L~ Staff has reviewed the Vail Comprehensive Plan to determine which elements-,of-~ ~ ~- - ,.,,, r:r+~:++ the Plan apply to the review of this proposal. Upon review of the Plan, Staff has determined that the following elements of the Plan apply: • Transportation Master Plan (adopted 1993) • Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan (adopted 1998) This proposal conforms to the Town of Vail's transportation and engineering standards. The applicant has also agreed to make a financial contribution to the Town of Vail in the form of traffic impact fees in accordance with the recommendations of the Transportation Master Plan. Therefore, Staff believes this proposal substantially complies with the applicable elements of the Transportation Master Plan. Staff also believes this proposal complies with the applicable elements of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan (refer to criteria #2 above). In summary, Staff believes that the applicant has presented evidence that the proposed major exterior alteration is in compliance with the purposes of the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District, that the proposal is consistent with applicable elements of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, that the proposal does not otherwise have a significant negative effect on the character of the neighborhood, and that the proposal substantially complies with other applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan. IV. MITIGATION OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS • Emolovee Housing As indicated in a number of the goals and objectives of the Town's Master Plans, providing affordable housing for employees is a critical issue which should be addressed through the planning process for major exterior aleration proposals. 15 In reviewing the proposal for employee housing needs, staff relied on the Town of Vail Employee Housing Report. This report has been used by the staff in the past to evaluate employee housing needs. The guidelines contained within the report were used most recently in the review of the Austria Haus, Marriottt, Four Seasons, Manor Vail Lodge, Vail Village Inn, Crossroads, Ritz Carlton, Arrabelle, etc. development projects. The Employee Housing Report was prepared for the Town by the consulting firm Rosall, Remmen and Cares. The report provides the recommended ranges of employee housing units needed based on the type of use and the amount of floor area dedicated to each use. Utilizing the guidelines prescribed in the Employee Housing Report, staff analyzed the incremental increase of employees (square footage per use) that results from the redevelopment. The figures identified in the report are based on surveys of the commercial-use erployment needs of the Town of Vail and other mountain resort communities. As of the drafting of the report, Telluride, Aspen and Whistler, B.C. had "employment generation" ordinances requiring developers to provide affordable housing for a percentage of the new employees resulting from commercial development. "New" employees are defined as the incremental increase in employment needs resulting from commercial redevelopment. Each of the communities assesses a different percentage of affordable housing a developer must provide for the new employees. For example, Telluride requires developers to provide housing for 40% (0.40) of the new employees, Aspen requires that 60% (0.60) of the new employees are provided housing, and Whistler requires that 100% (1.00) of the new employees be provided housing by the developer. In comparison, Vail has conservatively determined that developers shall provide housing for 15% (0.15) or 30% (0.30) of the new employees resulting from commercial development. When a project is proposed to exceed the density allowed by the underlying zone district, the 30% (0.30) figure is used in the calculation. If a project is proposed at, or below, the density allowed by the underlying zone district, the 15% (0.15) figure is used. Since this proposal complies with the allowed density, the 15% figure has been used. Emolovee Generation Calculations a) Multi-Family (Dwelling Units) 9 new units proposed @ (0.4/unit) = 3.6 employees b) Retail 650 sq. ft. @ (5.0/1000 sq. ft.) = 3.25 employees • ,.., • 6.85 employees x .15 1.03 employees According to the calculations above, the applicant must establish 1 new deed- restricted employee bed ("pillows"). The applicant is proposing to provide the • required deed-restricted employee housing unit off-site by purchasing and deed restricting a unit of no less than 700 sq. ft. with no less than one bedroom. The Town of Vail Housing Coordinator has reviewed the applicant's employee 16 • housing mitigation proposal and has determined that proposal meets the Town of Vail's employee housing requirements and is consistent with other mitigation proposal approved for similar development projects. Parkina The Lion Square Lodge North has 29 existing, functional parking spaces. The original approval of the building required 38 parking spaces for the existing 26 dwelling units; however, the configuration shown on the original condominium plat of the project was not constructed. With this major exterior alteration proposal, the applicant will be providing the required parking for the new retail space and the 9 new dwelling units. Additionally, the applicant will be constructing 9 additional new parking spaces to remedy the existing parking shortfall. As part of this major exterior alteration, the applicant is proposing to construct a total of 53 parking spaces with 29 constructed in a below grade structure and 24 constructed above on a surface lot. The majority of the surface spaces will be screened from view by the installation of a sod roof covering. Traffic The proposed new dwelling units and retail space will likely increase the traffic flow to and from the Lion Square Lodge North site. To mitigate the effects of this • increased traffic, the applicant will be making a financial contribution to the Town of Vail in the form of a traffic impact fee of $45,500. This fee is based upon an assessment of $6,500 per increased traffic trip at peak hour. A traffic study by Kimerly Horn, which has been reviewed and approved by the Town of Vail Public Works Department, has determined that at peak hour this proposal will add 7 new vehicle trips. Landscaoina/Streetscaoe As noted above, the applicant is proposing to install a sod roof covering over the majority of the parking area to screen it from view. The existing Lion Square Lodge North has minimal existing landscaping, which primarily consists of a grass lawn. As part of this major exterior alteration request, the applicant is proposing to re-landscape the site (including trees, shrubs, planting beds, sod, etc.) to provide both screening of the building and an improved street presence for the property. The applicant will be coordinating the installation of landscaping with the Arrabelle development project. Coordination with Other Redevelopment Projects As noted by the applicant, Lion Square Lodge North has granted easements and access agreements to Vail Resorts for pedestrian and vehicular circulation, construction staging, water retention, and utility upgrades associated with the • Arrabelle redevelopment project. The applicant will also be coordinating the installation of their proposed landscaping with the Arrabelle development project. 17 New Retail Use • The existing Lion Square Lodge North consists of only dwelling units. As part of this requested major exterior alteration, the applicant is proposing to construct a new 650 sq. ft., first floor, retail space adjacent to the pedestrian path on the east side of the building. This new retail space transforms this existing wholly dwelling unit building into amixed-use project in keeping with the intent of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Art in Public Places and Off-Site Road/streetscape Improvements At this time the applicant is not proposing specific contributions to art in public places or off-site road/streetscape improvements adjacent to the Lion Square Lodge North (currently being constructed and funded by Vail Resorts as part of the Arrabelle development project). X. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission evaluate if a contribution to art in public places and/or the off-site road and streetscape improvements along Lionshead Place (currently being funded by Vail Resorts) are necessary as mitigation of this proposal's development impacts. Staff also recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission consider forwarding a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to amend the "build-to-lines" of • the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan to allow the applicant to construct the proposed parking area sod roof within the required setback. Staff believes extending the sod roof and creating a continuous lawn/landscape area between the Lion Square Lodge North and the Montaneros better meets the intent of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan than the strict application of the 10 foot setback requirement prescribed by the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District. Staff believes such an amendment to facilitate a continuous lawn/landscape area would create a "win-win-win" for the Montaneros, Lion Square Lodge North, and the Town of Vail's citizens and guests. The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission approves with conditions the request for a final review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7H-7, Major Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the renovation of the Lion Square Lodge North, located at 660 West Lionshead Place/Lot 8, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Staff's recommendation is based upon the review of the major exterior alteration review criteria outlined in Section VIII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented at the public hearing. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this major exterior alteration request with conditions, Staff recommends the Commission make the following findings part of the motion: "Pursuant to Section 12-7H-8, Compliance Burden, Vail Town Code, the applicant has proven by a preponderance of the evidence before the Planning and • Environmental Commission and the Design Review Board that the proposed major exterior alteration is in compliance with the purposes of the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 zone district, that the proposal is consistent with applicable elements of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan and that the proposal does not 18 otherwise have a significant negative effect on the character of the neighborhood, and that the proposal substantially complies with other applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan. " Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this major exterior alteration request, Staff recommends the following conditions: Prior to Aoolication for Buildina Permits 1) Prior to application for building permits, the developer must obtain Town of Vail Design Review approval of this proposal. 2) Prior to application for building permits, the developer must obtain Town of Vail Public Works Department approval of a construction staging plan for this proposal. 3) Prior to application for building permits, the developer must obtain Town of Vail Public Works Department approval of civil engineering construction plans and off-site improvement plans for this proposal. Prior to Reauestinp a Tem,oorarv Certificate of Occuoancv 4) Prior to requesting a temporary certificate of occupancy for this proposal, the developer shall provide one deed-restricted employee housing of no less than 700 sq. ft., with no less than one bedroom, that complies with the Town of Vail • Employee Housing requirements (Chapter 12-13, Vail Town Code), and that said restrictions shall be made available for occupancy, prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy. !n addition, the deed-restrictions shall be legally executed by the Developer and duly recorded with the Eagle County Clerk & Recorder's Office, prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy. 5) Prior to requesting a temporary certificate of occupancy for this proposal, the developer shall be assessed a transportation impact fee in the amount of $6,500 per increased vehicle trip in the peak hour generated by this proposal. Per the Traffic Study dated June 1 S, 2006, this major exterior alteration will result in 7 additional vehicle trips in the peak hour. Therefore, the applicant shall pay a transportation impact fee of $45,500. At the sole discretion of the Town of Vail Public Works Director, said fee may be waived in full, or part, based upon the completion of certain off-site improvements. For the Life of the Project 6) For the life of the project, the development shall install, operate and maintain arz approved i~ztelligent transportatio~z sight distance system. This shall include adequate detection devices and warning system. The system shall address all turning rnovernents that have i~zadequate sight distance. 19 XI. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Applicant's Zoning Calculations C. Applicant's Master Plan Compliance Analysis D. Applicant's Mitigation of Development Impacts Letter E. Applicant's Employee Housing Mitigation Letter F. Applicant's Letter about Communication with Adjacent Properties G. Proposed Architectural Plans H. Adjacent Property Owners' Correspondence • :] 20 0 0 0 e Attachment: B LION SQUARE LODGE -NORTH Zoning Calculations s/2/os Required Proposed Comments Site Area over 10,000 sf 41,513 conforms 'Setbacks 10 feet 10 feet min conforms 'Maximum Roof Heights 71' avg, 82.5 max 71' avg, 82.5 max conforms 1 Density 133% of exist. conforms Allowable Units 36 Existing Units 27 Proposed Units 9 Total Units 36 100% GRFA 250 sf/100 sf build. site area conforms Allowable 103,782 sf Existing 24,229 sf Proposed 49,394 sf 48% Site Coverage 7D% max conforms Allowable 29,059 sf Proposed 26,509 sf 91 Landscape 20°/ minimum conforms Minimum Required 8,302 sf Proposed 11,100 sf 134% Required Parking 1.4 per new dwelling unit conforms Existing 38 New Required 13 Retail 2 Proposed 53 Provided Parking conforms Compacts 25% max, 8x16 12 Full 9x19 23 Valet 50% max, 8x18 14 HC 4 Total Provided 53 100% (Employee Housing Unit 1 type III/IV 1 type III/IV off site Snow Storage snow melted surface parking conforms Building Eave Height at Remaining Areas 60' max. eave height conforms with intent ( 12' min. step back conforms with intent Wall Surtace Criteria 35' maximum vertical face conforms with intent L horizontal step required conforms with intent 'Exterior Wall Spans 30' maximum span at street level conforms with intent (Primary Secondary Building Material Def. Primary: exceed 500 sf area conforms II Secondary: 500 sf area or less conforms (Primary Secondary Building Colors Primary: exceed 500 sf area conforms Secondary: 500 sf area or less conforms Primary Secondary Roof Definitions Primary: exceed 500 sf roof area conforms Secondary: 500 sf roof area or less conforms Roof Dimensional Guidelines 30" min. eave and rake overhangs conforms ' 18" overhangs at secondary roofs conforms Roof Pitch Primary: 6:12 to 12:12 12:12 conforms L Secondary: 4:12 to 12:12 (or flat) conforms n r: Prepared by: Melick Associates MELICK ASSOCIATES INC Attachment: C LION SQUARE LODGE - NORTH PROJECT COMPLIANCE -Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan 6/2/06 Submittal to Community Development for the PEC and DRB approval process CHAPTER 5 -LION SQUARE LODGE Traffic Concerns - The vehicular circulation was primarily dealt with by Vail Resorts during the approval process for the Arrabelle project. Site access via Lionshead Place was realigned to accommodate both surface and sub terrain access to the Arrabelle project for both lodging vehicles and delivery vehicles. Anew curb cut was added along the south of Lionshead Place to serve as the new front door to the Lion Square Lodge providing gated and parking access for the facility. A curb cut has been added along the south property line of the North project to provide access to the new lower level of parking. The existing curb cut along the west property line of the North project has been maintained and shifted approximately five feet to the north to provide access to the surface parking. Service vans will use this entry point, under the west building, to service the building. A traffic impact study has been provided by Kimerly Horn to study the traffic impacts of adding nine new condominium units to the North project. They also provided the traffic impact study • for the Arrabelle so they are familiar with the surroundings. Their report states that no infrastructure upgrades are required as long as no more than 13 units are added to the project. Pedestrian Connection between the Main Building and the North Building - Pedestrian access between the Main Building and the North Building was primarily dealt with by Vail Resorts during the approval process for the Arrabelle project. Across walk has been provided across Lionshead Place between the two properties that ties into the sidewalk along the north side of the realigned Lionshead Place. The primary pedestrian entrance to the North project is the east lobby entrance in the east tower along the east side of the property. This provides a clear pedestrian connection and defined vehicular corridor between the Main Building and the North project. Ski Yard Pedestrian Access - Ski Yard Pedestrian Access was primarily dealt with by Vail Resorts during the approval process for the Arrabelle project. Access to the ski yard is obtained from north and south of the East Building. The North building project does not impact ski yard pedestrian access. Potential Development and Redevelopment Scenarios - The North project is undertaking major exterior renovations with the addition of two new condominium towers to the east and west of the existing building. This additional density has been designed within the allowable requirements of the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 (LMU-1) District. • 25107 GENESEE TRAIL RD ARCHITECTURE SUITE ONE HUNDRED ONE I N T E R I ORS GOLDEN CO 80401 PLAN N I N G TEL 303.534.1 930 WWW.MELICK.COM FAX 303.534.1931 CHAPTER 6 -SITE DESIGN GUIDELINES Primary Pedestrian Mall -not applicable • Secondary Pedestrian Mall -not applicable Primary Pedestrian Walk - Vail Resorts is providing the snowmelted sidewalk along the north edge of Lionshead Place as part of the Arrabelle project. The North project will be providing a landscape buffer between the sidewalk and the units to the north. This landscaping will be achieved with a mix of deciduous and evergreen trees to protect views and sun exposure. Ornamentals, perennials and annual flowers will be provided for a wide variety of textures and seasonal color. The landscape materials will not interfere with the pedestrian walk or snow storage requirements at mature growth. Secondary Pedestrian Walk -not applicable Vehicular Pedestrian Retail Street -not applicable Pedestrian Path - The North project is adding a pedestrian path for access to the first floor units that will not be snowmelted. The materials will be integrally colored stamped concrete consistent with the surface finishes being used at the Main Building pool deck. The width of this secondary pedestrian walk will be five feet. Lighting long this path is provided with low pathway bollards consistent with the architectural design guidelines. A lawn will be provided to the south of the path as a transition to the bermed landscaping to the south along Lionshead Place. This zone will be defined by a low stone wall. Fences and Enclosures - • Service functions for the North project are being achieved within the building footprint and therefore will not require supplemental fencing. The outdoor hot tubs will be screened and privatized with the use of terraced stone walls softened with landscaping to the south of the west tower. Anew transformer will be located to the west of the west tower and will be screened and softened with the use of landscaping. Compliance with Town of Vail Streetscaoe Master Plan - CHAPTER 7 -DESIGN STANDARDS Landscape Area - A minimum of 20% of the site will be landscaped as required. (see calculations attached) Site Coveraae - A maximum of 70% of the site will be covered by structures as required. (see calculations attached) Setbacks - A minimum of a ten foot setback will be provided as required. The existing one story structure in the Prescriptive Easement along the north property line will be left in ploce and reclad with stucco to be in keeping with the new design. Gross Residential Floor Area IGRFAI - The GRFA will not exceed 250 sf of GRFA for each 100 sf of buildable site area. (see calculations and drawings depicting limits attached) • Density - The density will not exceed 133% of the existing number of units. (see calculations attached) New Unit Definition -not applicable Buildina Heiaht -also see Chapter 8 The building height will not exceed 71 feet (average) and 82.5 feet (maximum). CHAPTER 8 -ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES Architecture - The form and massing of the building provides for a comfortable pedestrian scale and also breaks down the scale of the building utilizing a base, middle and top. Buildina Heiaht - The building height fits within the maximum allowable of 71 feet (average) and 82.5 feet (maximum). The maximum initial eave height falls within the allowable for 'remaining building frontage'. The vertical wall face dimensions are broken with horizontal steps, changes in material and color to break down the massing of the building in order to provide for a higher quality and more interesting articulation. Exterior Walls - The exterior walls are designed with a base, middle and top. The rhythm and order of the renovated exterior on the existing building are dictated by the existing conditions. An effort has been made to break the roof lines and decks. Gable roof forms have been added at the deck elements to break the continuous horizontal line on the building and to provide an A, B rhythm. This is also enhanced with the use of painted metal railings and balusters at the balconies. A mansard roof element has also been added along the perimeter of the building, between the gable roof forms over the decks, to soften and provide detail to the new elevations. The east and west ends of the existing building are also defined with a higher roof forms and different yet compatible articulation. This articulation and vocabulary of materials and treatment are what define the east and west towers to provide for a uniform treatment of the building exterior. Materials and Colors - The base is defined either with a different darker stucco color or stone, as well as a break in plane. The middle is defined by a lighter color of stucco. The top is defined by a change in material and texture with vertical siding the same color as the 'middle' stucco along with the roof and chimney form. All trims, eaves, rakes, trims, doors, and timber elements are white. Window cladding is bronze. The colors were chosen to blend with the surrounding structures while providing a visual and psychological warmth to pedestrians. Window Sizes. Shapes and Tvpes - All windows have a consistency of size and proportion throughout the elevations. Operable windows will be casement. The windows will be aluminum clad, bronze. All windows will be trimmed, the color white. Balconies. Guardrails and Handrails - The balconies have been located to provide functional outdoor space and also to provide aesthetic benefit and detail to the building exterior. Where balconies are not practical, they have been added to the building exterior as a 'romeo and Juliet' balcony to provide visual detail and interest to the building exterior. The materials to be used for the handrail, pickets and posts will be painted metal. The design of the railing system is patterned after the order of the building exterior elevations. Roofs - The roof forms being used include mansard roofs at the existing flat roofs, gable roofs over existing balconies, and hipped roofs with gabled roofs capping the new structures. The mansard roof form on the existing building is a practical means of tying the existing structure into the new design elements of the renovated exterior and new towers. The structural capacity of the existing building will not tolerate the addition of a full pitched roof. Adding a full pitched roof to the existing building would also greatly diminish the view corridor being maintained between the two new towers for the properties to the north. The predominant gable roof forms being used take their cue from the simple, fragmented, gable roof forms of European villages. Roof overhangs will be constructed with the minimum 30 inch eave and rake overhangs along with the minimum of 18 inches at secondary roof forms. Ridge beams and outriggers will be visually sturdy members of bx or 8x minimums. Rafter tails are not part of the exterior building vocabulary at this time. The roof pitch will be a 12:12 accept as noted otherwise on the drawings. Snow fences are being provided in locations to protect pedestrians below from falling snow and will be painted metal. Gutters and downspouts are planned to be integral to the roof forms with interior downspouts. Fireplaces and Chimneys - Stucco chimneys with open metal caps to promote air flow and screen spark arrestors are being provided for fireplace chimneys. Parkina - Parking Structure Design 1. Surface Parking - 22 surface parking spaces are provided with access from the ramp along the north property line. 2. Parking Decks - 34 parking spaces are provided in the lower parking level with access from the ramp from the south opposite the Antlers curb cut. The decks are primarily flat except for what is required to properly drain the decks. • 3. Structured Parking a. Parking Spaces -The enclosed parking spaces are 90 degrees to the drive aisle and 9' x 19', with 8' x 16' compact parking spaces not exceeding 25% of the total of the total required parking spaces. Valet parking (13) spaces are 8' x 18' and do not exceed 50% of the required parking. b. Height Clearance -The height clearance of the parking structure will be a minimum of 7' clear. c. Drive Aisles -The drive aisles are two way and 24' wide. d. Ramps -The ramps between levels are 24' wide with 12% slope. 4. Parking Needs Assessment and Vehicular Circulation Parking a. Parking Count Maintain Existing 38 New for New Condos 13 (1.4 spaces for each unit) Retail 2 (2.3 spaces per 1000 sfl Total Parking Count 53 5. Circulation a. Existing curb cut and ramp location to remain basically the same. b. New ramp into the new lower level parking structure is located opposite the curb cut to the Antlers. c. 24' wide two-way drive aisles accommodate 90 degree parking stalls. Grading - 1. Maximum Finished Grade -The maximum finished grade does not exceed a 2:1 slope. The natural slope of the site is relatively flat. New grading to accommodate drainage will be blended into the natural topography. • 2. Construction Fence -The construction site will be properly surrounded by a non- removable construction fence during the construction process. 3. Erosion Control -Erosion control measures will be utilized using the best management • practices. The erosion control plan will be prepared by a registered Colorado Professional Engineer. Retaining Walls - 1. The retaining walls will be designed and stamped by a licensed P.E. Terrace landscape walls will be within the 4' - 6' maximum height range. Due to the relatively flat nature of the site retaining walls will not exist on slopes exceeding 30%. These walls will be veneered with stone. Geologic/Environmental Hazards - 1. The site does not contain snow avalanche, debris flow, rock fall, unstable soils or slopes or wetlands. r~ .-._¢ ^. C7 Attachment: D • • VIELE DEVELOPMENT, LLC 1 OOO S. FRONTAGE ROAD WES7~ SUITE 202 VAIL~ COLORADO 81657 Telephone: (970) 476-3082 Fax (970)476-3423 June 20, 2006 Bill Gibson, AICP Planner II Town of Vail Planning Department 75 South Frontage Rd. West Vail, Colorado 81657 RE: Mitigation of Development Impacts Dear Mr. Gibson: o~~~o~~~ JUN 21 1006 TOWN OF VAIL Per the request of the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission and per Section 12- 7H-18, Vail Town Code, the following list represents the proposed measures to be taken by our development team to mitigate the impact of the re-development of the Lion Square North Building: MITIGATION OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS New Retail Use 650 square feet of retail space will be added to the North-East corner of the East Tower. The current building does not have a retail or commercial use on the property. This new use will provide increased vitality to the west end of the Arrabelle Hotel. The space will be situated across from the western pedestrian tunnel of the Arrabelle, thereby extending the retail mall. Employee Housing An off site employee housing unit will be purchased and deed restricted by the developer. The unit will have a minimum of one bedroom and 700 square feet and will be located in the town of Vail. Parking /Sod Roofed Courtyard The redevelopment of the Lion Square North Building will bring the current parking situation into compliance with the Lionshead Master plan and LMLI zoning. At current, the property has 29 functioning parking spaces where 38 are required. The building has been non-compliant since initial occupancy of the building in 1974. The redevelopment will provide the required 38 parking spots for the existing building in addition to the 15 new spaces required by the incremental increase in density and retail use on the property. The parking will consist of one level ofunder-ground parking and a level of surface parking to be covered by a sod roof, to the extent allowed by the zoning standards, which will integrate with the adjacent property to the North thereby creating a landscaped courtyard between the two buildings. VIELE DEVELOPMENT, LLC . 1000 S. FRONTAGE ROAD WEST SUITE 2O2 VAIL~ COLORADO 81657 • Telephone: (970) 476-3082 Fax (970) 476-3423 Pedestrian Access In 2005, an access easement was granted to Vail Resorts by the Lion Square North Building HOA to allow for vehicular and pedestrian traffic across the south side of the Lion Square North Property. This easement was granted with the expectation that the redevelopment of the Lion Square North Building would be occurring in the near future and the pedestrian access across the Lion Square North property would add vitality to the area and provide greater access to the new Arrabelle Square. Landscaping In an effort to provide a pedestrian experience in keeping with the natural environment that surrounds our village, the pedestrian access through the south side of the Lion Square North property will be heavily landscaped and will have a berm to provide for separation from the Lion Square North Building and the pedestrian way. On the North side, a sod roof will be built over the first level parking deck to the extent allowed by zoning, thereby creating a landscaped plaza that integrates into the adjacent property's landscaping. streetscape and Street Lighting The ,pedestrian access around the south side of the Lion Square North property will have a • streetscape consistent with the streetscape built by Vail Resorts for the Arrabelle project. In addition, the sidewalks will have site lights in keeping with the Lionshead Master Plan. Tra~c Impact Fee The developer will provide the Town with improvements to the adjacent roadways and streetscape equal to dollar amount defined by Town of Vail planning staff and consistent with traffic impact fees of other approved projects. Benefits provided to Vail Resort to Enable Arrabelle and Lionshead Redevelopment: Numerous easements and access agreements were provided to Vail Resorts to allow for pedestrian and vehicular circulation, construction staging, water retention and utility upgrades throughout the core of Lionshead. All were granted with the expectation and understanding that the redevelopment of Arrabelle was in and of itself a benefit to the community and that each easement and favor granted would in turn benefit the community of Lionshead as a whole. 2 of 4 VIELE DEVELOPMENT, LLC 1000 S. FRONTAGE ROAD WEST SUITE 2O2 VAIL~ COLORADO 81657 • Telephone: (970) 476-3082 Fax (970)476-3423 COROLLARY BENEFITS OF LION SQUARE NORTH REDEVELOPMENT Under Utilization of Development Potential After substantial evaluation, the Lion Square North HOA and the developer chose not to maximize redevelopment to the extent possible by zoning standards in an effort to maintain as much of the current character of the neighborhood as possible. The Lionshead Master plan allows for considerable bulk and mass: the re-development plan, as proposed, amounts to a fraction of what could be built on the property under current zoning. The proposed project has less than 47% of the GRFA allowed on the site and is 73% of the average height allowed. While development options remain for the property, current design makes a redevelopment beyond the proposed scope unlikely. Great care and attention was paid to respecting the scale and character of the neighborhood, specifically with regard to adjacent property owners. The design as contemplated ensures the majority of views from the North will be maintained and preserved. Aesthetic and Functional Upgrade to the Property . While the direct benefit of the proposed redevelopment will accrue to the property owners of the Lion Square North Building, the plan provides for a needed upgrade to an old and architecturally unappealing building. The Lionshead Master Plan was created with the intention of providing owners and developers with the incentive to upgrade and improve their properties such that the entire community of Lionshead and Vail as a whole would benefit. We feel the proposed design achieves that goal and will provide a substantial upgrade while creating additional economic vitality to the area. Upgraded Fire and Life Safety System: We recognize that the benefit of an improved and code compliant system will accrue to the owner and is mandated by the Town of Vail. However, it is important to note that this redevelopment is allowing that to happen in a timely manner, with a minimal impact to the surrounding areas. Simply put, the economics of the proposed plan allow for this upgrade. Given the increasing fire danger in our region and the ability of a fire to spread quickly in our Valley, each and every upgrade can be viewed as benefiting the whole. • 3 of 4 VIELE DEVELOPMENT, LLC 1000 $. FRONTAGE ROAD WEST SUITE 202 VAIL~ COLORADO 81657 Telephone: (970) 476-3082 Fax (970) 476-3423 SUMMARY The proposed development plan represents over five years of planning and numerous iterations of development proposals investigated by the Lion Square North HOA. The plan as proposed was recently voted on by each of the individual owners of the Lion Square North Building. The project received unanimous support from owners, with 100% of the 27 owners voting in favor of the project. The current plan complies with the Lionshead Master Plan and exceeds the requirements set forth For development impact mitigation efforts. We have included a retail use that currently does not exist on the property, have covered the parking to the extent zoning currently allows, we have developed less than half of the GRFA we are allowed under current zoning and are 30% below the average height requirements. In summary, we have gone to great lengths to be mindful of adjacent property owners and have made major modifications to our design in an effort to address some of the concerns that they have raised. Most importantly, we have maintained a view corridor through the Lion Square North property. We look forward to the opportunity to present this project to the Planning and Environmental Commission. Thank you for your time and consideration. Best Regards, '1 '~ ~ David Viele Manager C • • 4 of 4 Attachment: E VIELE DEVELOPMENT, LLC • 1000 S. FRONTAGE ROAD WEST SiIITE 202 VAIIy COLORADO 816$7 Telephone: (970) 476-3082 Fax (970) 476-3423 June 15, 2006 Bill Gibson, AICP Planner II Town of Vail Planning Department 75 South Frontage Rd. West Vail, Colorado 81657 RE: Lion Square Lodge -North: Employee Housing Dear Mr. Gibson: Per our discussions with the Town of Vail Planning Staff and with the Town of Vail Housing Department regarding the Employee Housing Requirement for the redevelopment of the Lion Square Lodge North building, we propose to provide anoff--site solution to meet our employee housing requirement. Our interpretation of the employee housing regulations for the Town of Vail, speci$c to the Lionshead Master Plan, is as follows: • EMPLOYEE GENERATION: Multi Family Requirement: .4 per unit * 9 units = 3.6 Employees Generated Modifier = 15% as the project complies with Zoning Employee Housing Requirement for Condominium Lises: 3.6 * .15 = .54 Beds Requirement: Provide One Employee Bed Retail/ Commercial Requirement: 5-8 per 1000 SF 8/1000 * 650 SF of Commercial Space = 5.2 Employees Generated Modifier = 15% as the project complies with Zoning Employee Housing Requirement for Retail Llses: 5.2 * .15 = .78 Beds Requirement: Provide One Employee Bed Per the above calculations, we have determined that the development, as proposed, will require an • employee housing unit with two beds. We propose to provide an off-site type III or IV Employee VIELE DEVELOPMENT, LLC 1000 S. FRONTAGE ROAD WEST SUITE 202 • VAIL~ COLORADO 81657 Telephone: (970) 476-3082 Fax (97p) 476-3423 Housing Unit with one bedroom, within the town of Vail. The unit will be a minimum of 700 square feet. Please call with any questions related to this proposal. Best Regards, 1 ~~~~~ David Viele Manager • •' Attachment: F VIELE DEVELOPMENT, LLC 1000 S. FRONTAGE ROAD WEST SUITE 2O2 . VAIL~ COLORADO 81657 Telephone: (970) 476-3082 Fax (970)476-3423 ~~~~ v Lam', D June 23, 2006 fUN 23 Z~Q~ Bill Gibson, AICP Planner II TOWN OF VAIL Town of Vail Planning Department 75 South Frontage Rd. West Vail, Colorado 81657 RE: Summary of ~orts made to communicate with adjacent property owners Dear Mr. Gibson: Per your recommendation, the following list highlights the efforts that have been made by our development team and the Lion Square North Home Owners Association to communicate our plans for redevelopment with adjacent property owners. EFFORTS AT COMMUNICATION WITH ADJACENT PROPERY OWNERS • • Prior to the involvement of the current development team, numerous meetings were held between the Lion Square North HOA and owners of adjacent property. • Upon the engagement of the current development team, an initial meeting between representatives of the Lions Square North HOA, the development team and adjacent property owners was held. • Upon completion of the initial design submitted to the Town of Vail Planning Staff for review, the development team placed a call to the president of the adjacent property's HOA whereby the project was explained in detail and an offer of further communications was made. • Following the initial review of the project by the PEC, members of the development team and the Lion Square Lodge initiated a conference call with a designated committee representing adjacent property owners. The design was discussed in detail. • Immediately after a revision to the plans was completed {6/2/06) and forwarded to the Town of Vail Planning Staff, said revision was sent to representatives of the adjacent property owners. Said revision reflected a number of changes to the building suggested by the adjacent property owners. • VIELE DEVELOPMENT, LLC 1000 S. FRONTAGE ROAD WEST SUITE 2O2 VAIL~ COLORADO 81657 • Telephone: (970) 476-3082 Fax (970)476-3423 • At the time of distribution of the plans to the adjacent property owners, the development team expressed an interest in discussing the plans with the adjacent property owners. A conference call was conducted on 6/22/06 with representatives from the development team, the Lion Square HOA and adjacent property owners. The revisions to the plans were discussed and explained. REVISIONS TO THE DESIGN RELATED TO COMMUNICATIONS WITH ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS Numerous design concepts were considered by this development team and others prior to the decision to move forward with the current design concept. It should be noted that one of the primary reasons the current model was selected was the limited impact the project had on the adjacent property owners, as represented by the substantial amount of density and height that will be undeveloped. The following design modifications have been a result of communications with adjacent property owners: • The entrance to the first level of parking has been moved to under the West tower. This • change allows for a landscaped separation between the proposed North tower and the adjacent property, which sits within 4 feet of the property line. • The Lion Square North Building currently extends onto an adjacent property through an easement. The portion of the building that currently extends onto the easement as well as the portion of the building that is currently in the setback will remain in place with no modification to the structure of the building other than material application to its exterior. • A sod and landscaped deck/terrace has been designed that will cover the parking on the ground level adjacent to the property line to the extent possible by current zoning. • The West tower was initially designed 10 feet off the setback, or 20 feet from the property line as a consequence of the adjacent property's close proximity (within 4 feet) to the property line. • The mechanical units on the roof of the building have been covered by a mansard roof. • 2 of 3 VIELE DEVELOPMENT, LLC 1000 S. FRONTAGE ROAD WEST SUITE 2O2 • VAIL~ COLORADO 81657 Telephone: (970) 476-3082 Fax (970)476-3423 SUMMARY The design as proposed represents a fraction of what the current zoning allows and complies with zoning at every level. The HOA of the Lion Square North and the development team have been mindful of the impact this project will have on adjacent property owners from the beginning of the design process and have taken great efforts to preserve as much of the current character of the neighborhood as the economics of this project allow. In addition, the development team and the Lion Square North have been proactive in initiating a discourse with adjacent property owners and have made numerous design changes in an effort to limit the impact of the development on adjacent property owners. We look forward to the opportunity to present this project to the Planning and Environmental Commission. Thanl: you for your time and consideration. Best Regards, • ~~ /---~ ~f` 1 ~'/ _ ~~Z~ David Viele Manager • 3 of 3 F--~ _ Attachment: G - --- ~ I i ~ Z ~._s~c., ..- ~Q _• 1. ~~..,^.+y~ ~`` .~ ~I *~ ~ I _ I ~ I _.-- L] ~ ~Y, < ~..--~ ~ .l "4 ~, \ O o 5 w ~ ~ ~ t i ~ , :, .- .. __ ~,y N~~f 6 .--- 4 - _ ~, ~ VLF f ~ ~ L ~s.: ~~ i I 1 - ~ ~. ~ c~ - ;, i 1 i x V" ~ : 1- .~ ti 1 ~~~~ ec 1 ~ j ti~ ~~~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~2~ t. ,~ j ~~ S ~e ~ j~ /, Y N ~,k1 ` ~ 8~ ~ ~ F~ .. 8 ~%' ~` r$ ~ ~ ~ti ~ 1, ~ ~ x,'I ~ ;' ! ' ~ ~~. ~~ - , ._a ~ ~~, ~j ' '~ -- ~z f' ~, ~ ~ .~,~~ 1 ~~ I ', ~ ~ rt "~~ ~ ,~ __ g1 3 3d IBS . ` ~ f ~f I I J 4 .. s _" a8 II~~ a 'e` 1 f ~ + -i '~ BFI Y au } ~ of ~, ~ ~ -<. ~ ~ H 1 ' .. a I ,y_ r. - ".C 1 8. `` . ~ rtl, '- 5 .: rte`" A f ~ R ' 1 ce 4 ~ Fll.l. ~~ - SY it o~~ • vz A ~ ~ ' /n J sL .~ 1. ~~if S ~; 1 roc ~ a~a~_ _~ ~ 1... % 1 ':~ dd i~ _ y _ - j~ ~ 4 R~ 7 6 i° 8 _ .P __ -- . ~- ,~ a e a a A., F `,~~~ 1 e`` ~bx e a 1 ,~ ~. `_ ~----~ - --- ~, ~ , ~ ~ S ~ ~~ tt ' ~ 9 ~l~y/.~~ \ .~~~o ~~ z~~ W ~ .a ._ . f z i 44 0 tr I ;~~ ~o _~ ~ ,. . ~s - ~- \ _ 1 l~l~-~!l~~ - -, ~* ~I , ; ~ - -~I ,- 8_ -- / ~, _~ 8 '%. _ - - - - ... :, n ~~ ~ j ~ aaaa~aaa ~. I a• € 6 Tom' ~ E ~~ a x g~ i. n;y_ ; v~ ~~~~ ~~~~~'~~ sgg~ ~~ ~ a' .g~ ~ ~ ~ ,I M;O B: d~u i~fl3: ~9~Ss >. -~ <~~ "<~ ~ $ a~4~ ~ .~ o a NSW W ~~ ~~ ~~~' ~~ a f~su #~ xs ~~ .~~~ --- -= 4 Eeoxae. .~_ ~_ :' n ~~~ ~3 - - I I S s a t • : ;: ~ -~- ~ o .. ~; ~ ~-~..JlllllllJ ~, , o I _ __ - ~~~Y~ :t= ~; :: i ~ _~ C ~ ~ ~ ti - ~ -- f,: p~~ ~~ y ~ : ~~~ ~ 6~xap~ SgWa~ ¢ .., .I _ .... _ _ ~ o ° & j tar' _ 9 i ~ ^~ ~1' ~, OF*.,,,,. GSA _ 't ,. ~ pp ~~NE..,o~NtEgS~ b ~~?!`~, g ~ aCi N ~ a ~ SO p o :r' 0 ~ 8~ g m :o~ m J IS? ~~~ ~~~ ~~ F ~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~~ .:.,, _ ~" r! ~~ _ `_i ~\ i 0'i` '~ --~ ~ ` a. ~ I _ ~ _~ T ~ ` L ~'_ ~~ € ~' Q ' ~ / ~. = f``tl~.. ~~ 36 ~~ ~~ ti f:e ~ ~ ~~ ~~ _ O § ' J w ta ~ ~~~ N Q ~ ~8~~ , O z" ,.~ o ~~ ~i~Z p' g ~ ~ Q t C7 ~~~~ O a a `. a d " ~ z 8 ~ ~ O s- \ r.~ ..____ nar o oa IRf - .. . 11 ~-I~~ T _--- 9 ~ ~- ~ ~_ _.. j } ~'` ~ W ~, - 0 W I(/ / } $ ~~ ~ .. ~. i $ ~~ _ -_ $ ~ ~~ / `~ hI r ~ ~31 9 i-c- J .: _~ ~ - c ~~~ 4 ~ _ ~~ - r~ _ I; -' ~ g , ~- i ~. I _-_ - ~. ~ ; i-n,r ' ~ ~ i- I - ~ I I -_~ - -~ - ~~ ~-- I _ - -_ _ I III I ~ 0 0 i S~ _, __~_., ~. ~`oN'tF.~'EC~O o ~•``~ to ~ d o4..`~° s 2~ ~',~ ~ y~'dy '~; ~ 3~~ ~ ~.oo ~ ~1 e 8 8 z _ ~J / ~~ € ~~ / 8 g Bps /~ ~ ~ w ~ g 6 ~k ~$,. / ~a / r / _ F ~ r £f 1 1 _ axe __ i I :N O: _ I ~ rn - r ~ a'o I I ° 1 I~ :Z r Y ~ /F I lfl QV(,-- L i 1 O ~ ; J ~ a. r 0, a = i ~"h _~ i ~ Ir -- 1 ~ ~.I + ~ I o - I e4. ~ i ~~~ _~~ ~ ,~` ~ . _,_ ~/ ~ _ -- ~ Vii- ._~ ~u~~~ , ~ m~ ,, ~~ ~~ # a , ., ~ '~ ~ = ~ - ~.~ ~;_' - ,~ ~; o ~ -~ ~~~ ~a~ §~°~s 91~ ~ •_4, ~ z ~ ~ ' €~ ~~ , F 1 ~ I'II?diisi uri r'li I ~~" ~~~ga ~~~9~ fib li' ~!~~ ~ t! ~I 'i~ w S 1 b 3 i ~Fi~~in{IIiEi;ilriu+ O Z~~4 ~g~E'~u Z 1l ~~ .J • ~~ ~~ ~ ~, t~ W !t _` ~~~ 0 y Y C 8I [~ • CJ ~,, r~J, ~ . - '~ ~~ - ,~-- ~;- ~, ,.~F ~ --- ° ~ -- . a ~a ---- -- l ~- ~~.~~ -----~ `~ ----- --- ----- ----- ~ ~. --- - ---- ~I, ~ ~~ ------ i a o ;oq ~~~~~ O ~~ ~~.~~ i 1 ~~ Z~ ~1 1 ~~ I I ~ i ` I ~ 1 1 ~ r~ ~ I 1 ~~ ~ i I ' / ! ~~ ~~ I ,, I' ,~ 1 i I i ___~__ i -' / ', L - _ i ~_ --- __ _ __---- ~ ~; o - :~~<// ~akOi Llv?~. r~ u I' / r . ~ J 1 ~ 1 1 i / 1 ~ I L__-- ~- 1 ~ _ _ _._--- - 'aa w ~ a ~{y! •~ V > ~[ 1 1 I I ' 1, / r ~ 1 ,~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ J 1 ~ 1 1 ', L-- _ ~, 1 J _ _~^ _ _ _---- - - - - ~^--~ ~ 1% ~i ~ r ~ / ~ i ' ~ I 1 i 1 _ ~ --- ~_` i~o.~ w°Ik°~ ~~%~ v n W 4 1 I, t - ~ - ~ I i ~~ N^ § i • 0 ; V r~-~ay kyy ~~ n y 3 K O ky' _ W~ i 1 ER~ ~ a} ! ~ Y 7 O O O Ov ~ Y / Z/ J t f I 4 I ~` ,~ I i I I I 1 J ,' 1 r 1 !, ~~ I ~ ~' ~' ,~ ~ ~~ I' ,~ ~~ I ' '` .-~ " -__--- _ ~ ~~~~~ _~-"'._ • ., __ __ _ -==---1=====______= - - ~ ~ ____---- - ------- -----. -----------• ti r i ~.________r____. `------~ c--- `-_ _ _' i ----------------J+ ~~ a ,~ ~~to~ Oo~• ti ~~ _ .~ a . ~'~. ~, \~ \` s_ 1 ~ ' ii % / / f ~ / 11 / N 1i I 1 1 l I f I f t~ ~ ~i! i' ~~ ~~ ~~11 I'i ~~ ,; 1 ~ 1 1 ~ ' I ~ . ~; ;, ~~' , ;; 1~ ~I' %~' / J ~~ ~I ~I a II ~ ~ \,. I I I ~~.._.,._....._ I ~____' I ~' ~__~_'I -----------------~I I L~ 1 I I I ~ i I o } I O ~ i ~~ p ~ ~ O ~ I O I I I I a I I 1 ~ I~ I II 8 - a ~. g, 'I o~ ~ o ~ `k~\\\\\\\ I O~ I H 0 i ~ ~ I .. ~~~~~~~~~ 0 I qz I I I i I~~~~~~~~~~ I I I I II I ~. f t I I O I I ~ I I O I I~ ~ ~ ~a a ~ - ~, .;,. '~ \.` \,. ~;~\ \~ L ~ `,~" ~~ / ~ '~~ ~ i '~, W i ~- / ~"~ ~ ~ ~ d g ~I ~ I '~I ~ Z ] ~~ ~ 1 ~ '~1 ~ x I ~~, L~ ~ Z ~ ~ ,,' I L~ i I ~~ I I I ' '~ --' I i ,a ,~ ;;% ~ ,;- ,,; --- _~J ~ ,° o ~, e '~ I [hf~ Ih o ~ ~- - \ b O \\ I ( I n 0 i~J~ f ~~~~`_ ~- ~ .._-_-____-w_~"_~ / i ~ 1 / ~~~~ ~~ -- ,~ ,; ~ __ , _ ii _ II S x~ z~ w~~a ~~-. o~~= ~~ 0 a .~~~ J • • . \ ~ //~/~~~ -- _ -_ ~~ ~ 333 ,~~ '~ o~ ` `----- ~ ' ~ W o ~ __ E `~\ a' ~ o~~: _.~----' \ ~ ~ " \ a I~ }tai _ ~a ~ a 8 P ~ t ~4 ate j a ~ 1~ ~~6 ~~~~ ~ x~ ~ 3 - 'a, ~, 'eg~~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~~ ~ . ~~ _ { ~ ~~ ~ '. ~~~tj, ~~ ~ I c.11 ~ f ~' 3U 9 ~ _~~, ~ ~, J . ~; ~ CJ o ~,~ g ~~ ~~ ~~ i ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ , i ~Eg,~6t h ~ ~\ ~\ a ~ 84 lr q \~ 1, `~ ~ Q ~ ~ t{ ~ , , ~a~~ ~, I. ~ ~ 11 eet p~ I 1 I .~~~ Y~ y ~~ 4 f9 ~ ~ I ~ 1 fl~~~e a I p ~ ~ ~ 1 1 1'~ 1 1 ~ ! o t ,~ L ~ i 1 l 1 1 ~r-a ,~ f ~ ~. 1 S I rl`' ~ ~~ fl 11 ~11 , ~ 11 1t I~ , ; ~, ~ .~ ~ ~~~° ~ ~ ~ 1 ~1 ~ '~~s~ :4~~ . ~ I ~ I ;~ ~~ ~- 1 oa ®~ ~ j x ,~ ~ o~ ~ ;; 1 ~ ~ 1 ~~~ ~ / ~~~~~ i I _._. ~/ / /~ /,/ ~ 4 ~ _ ~ /._ -------~ --_------ ~ .., ~ .. ~ .. ~ .1 I - ` I ~, ~ .v , i j ~ ~. ~ L~ ' ~ § '~ i - I a x I ~~ L. `-, i ( ~ .: ~- .I ~ ~ ~ i _i i` ~~ i ~ER a' n~ R I I I~ :_ I I l I = ~~1 ~ ~? I~ -_ _ ~~ ~ ~~ B Y R ~ ~~ if ... --- i ~ _ L -~~ ~\ \ ,' ~'" ~ ~~ ~ ; °z ~? W°`~~ ~o~; ow °~ a z o ~ s 6 0 • ']A~ n' ~ 1i10k~~ I ~'C - e a O M -' _i .. , y A l ~ ~~ 4 ~ 1 ` i i 4 ' ~ t ~ - ~ ~ ' - - : I + ~ ~ Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~~d ~ a l } . ~ 'It 4~ ~ ® ¢ ~ ~~` ~0 `` Z l ~ ` .. - _ ~ ~ ~ / ~~ - y~ - ; - ~ ~ __ x~ ~ ,. `' r ; E ~` f i f ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~. ~` l1 I ~ _ - ~ _.. e 4~ S ~ 1 1: ~i ~ g ~ d~ ~ ~' I $ ~ ~ 1 I ~ 0 ~: I ~I ... ~a ~ ~o q s ~ ~ I 1 ~ I ~ ~ s0 ~p3 l 1 ' ~ 4 i r'~~ ~ '~~ ~ ~ ~ ~€s ~ O II 1 ~ ` I 1 ` `'' r-~-' 3~ 4 ~ 4 t ~ ~ ,,,4 t 1 I ~ 7 J , i ~~_ I ' ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 0 { r b '~ ' 5 , ~ "`[[[~s1~ y ~ I ~ ~. ~ ~ O~ o / ~~ ~ q 9 ` _ ~ ~~ ~~ - / L, -_- -- _- -- ~~ ~ d d ~ p r ~~~Rw O 4 ~~ -.~ ~ 1 -- ----- :~ ~j ~j ~~ i ^ i , I I ~ ` I B ~ I• '1 31 I I .. i I I ~ ~ g I Y V 1 II ..~ ~t II _ 9. .+ <& I ` ~ e9 ~_.~ _ } L_---- -- ~. a "__ z~g woo, ~ C7 0 e _~ `~ °w~° ,\ ,\_ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~, ~\ a t :~ g ~~ ~ . ~ \ -~ ~ a '~ Z ~l dZ os J ~ f z~ ~~ i~ ~i ~i _ _ °ti ~l i ~ ~ I' - ~ l °_ul qm n i i i ~~ o0 1 I I ~'.. ~ ~ } ~~ ~ ~ I ~ ~; 1 _ i.. ~ '1 •I m ~ f I 'GE~ ESP M ~. ~ l YSL1 I.J ' '~ / ~~ - f / 'c~ g ~ O ' ®~ 3 /~ ~~ O f Y / / a8 ~ . - - ~ / ' 't a ~ ID 1~~4 • wF" i ~~ ~ ~, ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~~ ---^J--------• f 1 .. a w -- -- -- ~ ----- ~, ~~Eo \ ~a \ ~ \ z -=-,. ~ ~ ~ \ a 3 ~~~ ~ \ J l J~ °U° i 7 ~ Z 1 Q O NZ J ----, - o J~ ~ s Z i # ' ~ ~ -~ ~ ~ / -_ - 1 - ~ I ~~ , . .: ~ "~ ~ I~ _ ,, - o ~ ~ 1 _ I~ I~~q ~ "I I ,.. __. ~ ~ o ~~ + i ~~__ _ -- '~ - _ / ~.. 9 i o®o I - a ~ ~~ ® / / ' ~O OD / ~ ®o® / ~ ~ ~~~ •_~~ ~~ 4 i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i _ ~-- \ '~ ~ ~ { ~ s a ~ ~' ° 4 u 0 z 0 u --~~ ~ \ ~ 4 il~`kOi (~~`~r oa 1 1 L-- ~ _ ', ~~-' l 111 i h 1 ~ ~~ z ° I ~~~ ~ ~ 1\ 1 1 I~ \ 1 1 1 \ 1 1 1 1 1 ~ 1 \ 1 1 1 1 1 I I ,I T r, ~ .. y -____!_- T__ __ • \ 1 s, 1 ~ mit+•a~t+ a~ \ \ 'RE _ ®i ~ \ 6i ~1 1' i 1 1 1 ~• 1 o~~ln~.o. ~ 1 \ \ " r--' \ ai i V3 1 \ 1 a-. \ n 1 ~ s i.i 1 ; 11 1 \ 1 1 ~~ o ~ _: _ I 11 ~, 11 1 33'61 11 0 - ' 1 1 1 R; 'e \ 1 ~ 1 _~ \ I I 11 g 11 1, ~ 11 1 C ~:,1 1 ~ yj 1 1 1 \ c'\ I 1 1 1 1 -- 1 o 1 \ 1 I L 1 ~1 \ 1 1 1 1 NI ~ 1° 11 1 1 1 ~ 1 k 1 1 1 ~1 ~ ~\ \ 1' 1 1 1 1 ~ ~ r'1 \ ~ 1 I 1 1 ~ Eg c\1 -- 'm\ 1 - \ 1 1 g e . w1 1 1 1 1 ~~\ E~ 1 1 1 ~J~ b3 ~ 1 I \1 1\I X1\1 ~ € \I1 ~\ 1 ;% u 6. I 1 1 \ ~ 1 I \ _1 '1 ~ \1 ~-- I I -'__ ~_ 1 1 r 1 ZJ -- ^R 1 _~ z r\ nl m ~ ~F i t 1; n ~ 1 q 1 1 mwLLl \t \ g~ r E." 1\ 1 \ 1 ~ .~ 1 I 1 1 \ \ \ 1~ \ 1 1 II \ 1 r1 Z ~,1 J, I%1 "1 'A\ ~1 1 1 I I o1 1 z1 1 0 1 I ~~ 1 of 1 3 '' 11, \ Z P~ 1` is _ L l a eQe ~RC_° e91TjRa'°_•. TI~~ A~~ jj$$ W~; (^ \~ t\~~ \ ~ "^~ 3 R P Rip RF~=^i~?• Rye ~/ 4 \ ~ ~ ~ RFRRG FF~ ~ FFFFF~ F.~ C ,, ~~~11--,,n ~_ ..t T a:°~a - ..=secs=ecR s~3 ..~ .J~.!I I'`~~ »:, :,_ J--+t-- .-i~~ 1 loo .. . .,_..---, \~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ gg 1 ~ ~~ s° J ~~ ~ ~~ =1~ ~~ I / n .7. a \ 1 I NN 11 I ~ ~ 33 n 1 l 1~0 I \ 1 \ -- ± 1 ~ a ° \ ~p - 1 , - ~ \ ~ ~~ 1 6°~ f 11 1 1 1- ,1 \ 0 1 1 C 11 `1 \ \ r 1 ~ 1' \ 1 ° 1 \ \ ~ J1 ® ----- I I 1 1 ~ n "1 ~ n _ ~ I h 11 1 Rt..b'dl~o't..8e 1 oLL __ t. 1 1 ~ _° 1 1 ~ ~? 1 1 1 t 1 -----~-- Fl -~ ri- ~ 1 l 1 __ \ V\ 1 1 \ 1 1 1 4 \ ~ a ~~. ..1 . z~[o 0 0'~ v ~n a _ ~1 ..~ •Aii say+~ 1 C~IIc I~ ~ ~'.~/\ / 1 \ \R~~ S \\ t1` 1 oF,, ~w 11 ~ ~ ~~ 1 ~\ 1 1 \ 1 1 1 / SSt~ \ \ ~ ~ / / ~ r.._.. 1 i i ~..~ ~L y ~Yh ~. ~• .. Vf 1 z 0 id 1 W u Z04~i ww;9 a 0 d~ , ~a ~~ <.'J a ~, x~ ~' 9 ~ ii ~~ )~~ ~ I ~~~ S ~n i~~ a b ~ ~ $ 3 ~~~ i S ~ a 00000' ,~ "sg $ i s ~' 0 8 a ~ !S ? ; ~ ~ ~ ~~~<< q 5 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 I1 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 ~I II II II it II II II I, I I I, II I, II a II ~I ~I I I II II I II II wv~64 ~~` ~ ~ ~ i_ €6 a S ~~¢ ~~•I ~~Y •4 i0 ~G ~A I ~ I I I ~ _ ~...m~-, g~ a .. .., ! i! 4e ir;-- o i ~,' e o c & e B ~s €e $ .. ~? c~ zy Ao ~< ~~ ~W x~ z~to N Q O ~ Y O W Q I aN zR 0 a 3 i ~ A r ~ipv i~~~~ ~oooo ~ ~ ~~ 0~l3$~ ~(~9~3 w00000 ~~ ~~ @ ~~~lt~ ~~~: € ~ B 0 0000 • • 8.9. S 1H~~ ~ ~= \1 ~ _ ~~ ~~ i . ~~~~~~I i i i i ~3 ~ B: I I I I I I I ~Q ~~ x °z~§ wWEo ~ a ~ y a ~ o~ g .7 ~ LLB ~ i u y¢y ~ g ~ Q oW a ~~ B ~ ~,o~ ~~~€~~ 000000 ~ ~ ~ ;~~ ~~ ¢~~~~~ 00000 .s s ii °'_ s s ~ ~ ~#~~ ~~:°i~B ~ ~~0~ i ~~~ 1~11~~~: ~ n ~ _ ~~ s ~~~ ,, h . ,k~ gt I I a I ~ ~ a..., ~+---+ i ii ii ii i ~, ~, III i u u ii i 0 ~~ ~~ 3 ~~ ~~ ~ Ilfllllllllllllillllllllllll ~ 0 -~ G i - l~ m ~~ ,~ o i~ g d i I 6s9 P, B' pe A' 9i 9e ~ ego ~~ ~y~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a .., .,, .,, ..~ .,~ .. ;I ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ .,.~ e.a .. A .. i 9I 9a ~ g~ ~ a6 ',.~ ~~ 1 ~ ~.~. - ~1 3 I ~ s S o a 3 ~ ' Qz ao 5Q w, ~~ `~ z a: .o;. wWto C7o"" Oa~" 4 z d~ z~ 0 a 3 ~d e ~ ~ 0 6 :f,~ ~i~9s~ 000000 z ~ 4 ~ ~~@ ~ a ~ ~ c ~ ~ >~!tt~ ~ W 00000 ~ s~ & ; ~~ ~ ~ ~i~pt~ ~6~ °- 6 ~ B ~ ~~~~ I .I II II I I it II II I ~~ I II II II I II II / II II I 1 I II II I~ I I II II II I i II II II I II II II I 1 II II I ~ §e . g` . ~E . Se q_ ~ ~! z O S z O 7 O R n .,. ••,. ,,. ,,. „ G B 9 B t d ~g6~A~SI ~ ~~ Bidc !e ~i ~e g I I ~~ :7 • IH 6=8~ 6? 4 R yp ~~ ii f €0€ ya qpg4p p 6 p~B~ 8s ~~ ~y t~ Qk FR G4 [~ youy ~ C g € I C I ~ I ~ ~ - -- I 'J ~~~ ~ ~ ~~~ 0 d ~\ ~'~ ~ z 0 t 0 0 0 b a a 9 B ~ ~~ A a ~ $ o Y g~ `z ~ ao 0 zaa w~Eo ~W~Y A~ ~~ ggpgg pyy~ Pit~~e €i~~t~ 000000 Z o ~ 8 ~ ~~~ 0 9 oe `@ti€~ ~~ X00000 B i ~~ if min ~~~t~@ 0 0000 0 z 5 z ~.x~ ..~ ..i a .. ~ pe ££ [[ yy yp4Yp ~, 9p l5 Qp ip i` ~~ Z I~ ~~-N ..g..~ ~> `t; • • C o ~ ~`;~. d s w ~' y F z 0 a • • ~ s aft? k s' ~ 4^ `j '"~~ ~'l o ~~~~ .~~~ ~ ~t ~ ~~~, f J.. I • - ~ 1.t t 1? .~ \` ~ r `~tg `. ~ ~i ~`' 3 ! ~ r~ ,:yr /n, i,_ y C~ Z H X W w N d I ~' Q w ~; vi ~, ~ a O `_' a ~:: ~~ Z ~r,~ ~ w ~. S ~ it r ~ oog, uo Q V ~ ~\ 1+,_ f _ F ~:. / f. ~ .. i ~ ,, I I,:: V Z l/7 X w ... C ~ t7 - ,g ~ ,~ ,._.~ ~~ ~~.~ ~~, m~ _ ogS_ pin 0 N O O a n. O a V Z X w Attachment: H • • 303 442 0191 Johnson & Repuccl LLP 09:28:01 a.m. JUHNSnN ~ R~PUCCI LI,P A'I'rOItNEYS ANI) COt»1Sr:1.ORS A"I' I~nW 2521 (lrc~nuwn\',Surri:A noui,urrt, Cc~i.c~w\ao d03U4 TI?LIiPIII)Nli 3l)3-442-1900 Alexanrlrr A. Yruisor 'r1il,lil~nX i(r.3.4=12-0191 aaprcicr,• u:j-rlaw.w~m www.j-rlaw.com June 23, 2006 ILIA F,LF.'C:'TRONIG MAIL Bill Gibson Planner 11 Town of Vail 75 Sotrth Frontage 1Zoad Vail, Colorado 81657 Re: Lion Square Ledge -North Building, June 1, ?OOG Revised Drawings (PEC06-0019) • Dear Bill: l~cx ~-.neK ~IN'I'I:rt 1~ARI: As you are aware, this firm represents Montaneros Condominium Association, Inc. (the "Association"). This letter follows up on our April 21, 2006 correspondence to you outlining the Association's objections to the proposed Lion Square Lodge -North Building redevelopment (the "Lion Square Redevelopment Proposal") and supplements the objections of the individual owners of units in Montaneros Condominiums. We are irl receipt of the referenced revised drawings, and, for the reasons more particularly described in this letter, the Association continues to oppose the Lion Square Redevelopment Proposal. 1. The Lion Sauare Redevclonment Proposal continues to fail to achieve the ohiectives of the Lionshead Redevclonment Master Plan (the "Master Plan") and the LMU-1 Zone District. As noted in our prior correspondence, the Master Plan promotes the enhancernent and strengthening of the physical and visual connections to the natural environment of Clore Creek and Vail Mountain. This concept is repeatedly emphasized throughout the Master Plan. Similarly, the Town's Zoninb Regulations recognize the importance of ensuring adequate light, air, open space and other amenities within the LMU-t Zone District. Nevertheless, the Lion Square Redevelopment Proposal continues to ignore these fundamental design objectives. The revisions to the Lion Square Redevelopment Proposal include no changes to address the conce;r-ns previously raised by the Association related to elimination of both view corridors and sun access. This is readily Apparent from a review of tl~e sun shade analyses included in the referenced June 2, 2006 submittal 2. The Lion Sauare Redevelopment Proposal continues to violate the Town of Vail Zonine Regulations. (a) East'1'ower. Presumably irl response to Association's objection to the improper use of the easement conveyed by the Association to Lion Square North Condominium Association some 30 years ago, as more particularly described in prior communications co the 06-23-2006 2 /4 303 442 0191 Johnson & Repuccl LLP Bi}t Gibson June 23, 2006 Page 2 Town, the plans for the new cast tower of the Lion Square Redevelopment Proposal have been revised so that the existing one-story building located on the boundary of the Montaneros and Lion Square properties will, accorclin~! to the developer, remain in place ar7d t}re tower will be erected thereon. Neveirthclcss, engineering of the proposed east tower will undoubtedly dictate, at a minimum+, substantial reconstruction of the existing building to support the proposed east tower. Any reconstruction of the existing building violates the Zoning ReKulations applicable to nonconforming structures and in~perrnissibly expands the use of the casement granted by the Association and, thus, should be denied by the PEG. (b) Parkine Structure. in response to the Town's concerns regarding the parking plan for the Lion Square Redevelopment Proposal, the parking teas been reconfigured in the revised plans to include a covered parking structure. However, the roof of the proposed parkin}; structure encroaches into the required ten foot setback area. We understand from Mr. Viele that this overhang will be removed, but the Association continues to object to the current plans provided. In addition, we understand that there will be a retaining wall wl~iclr is either part of, or• immediately adjacent to, the parking structure, as well as a fence atop thereot; located approximately 1 ~ to 24 inches from the property line within the l0 foot setback area. L Moreover, we note that the proposed parking plan, including the valet parking system, appears impractical, unworkable and not in compliance Town's Developrr+ent Standards. We urge you and the PCC to carefully review this proposal. • (c) Variances. The revised plans fur the east tower and parking structure of the Lion Square Redevelopment Proposal arc clearly impermissible under applicable zoning' regulations, and, as more particularly detailed in our April 2I, 200h correspondence, there are no grounds to support the issuance of variances to permit these structures. 3. The Lion Sauarc IZedeveloament Proposal Continues to violate the nrivate UroUerty rights ofneiehborin~ nronertv owners. (a) Easements. Despite Mr. Viele's statements to fire contrary, based upon our review of the Lion Square Redevelopment Proposal, we believe that both temporary and permanent easements over Montaneros property will be required for such redevelopment. We see no way that the proposed structures can be erected without crossing onto Montaneros property and thus requiring easements. More importantly, the Association has serious concerns about Mr. Vielc's claims that no excavation stwring will be required offsite, and, thus, no easements are required for this purpose. 't'he wall of the Lion Square parking structure is proposed to be located within a few feet of the Montaneros h+.+ilding, seemingly requiring at a minimum temporary, and possibly permanent, easements for excavation shrn•ing to protect the Montaneros building. Please Ue advised that the Association will not approve any work nn its property, or grant easements to Lion Square for any purpose, in connection with the currc;ntly c~cisting Lion Square Redevclohmcnt Proposal. 09:28:18 a.m. 06-23-2006 3 /4 • 303 442 0191 Johnson & Repuccl LLP 09:28:39 a.m. 06-23-2006 4 /4 Bill Gibson • June 23, 2006 Page 3 (b) Protective Covenants of Vail/Lionshead. Third Filing (the "Covenants"l. We continue to urfie the Town, as a party with enforcement rights under Section 19.1 of the Covenants, to take into consideration the criteria for approval ~Fdevelopment plans dictated by the Covenants, which criteria include "the eI'('ect of any proposed improvement on the outlook oC any adjacent or neighboring property." On behalf of the Association, we thank you for your continued time and assistance with this matter. Very truly y .irs, Alexai der . Preiser cc: Matt Mire Riclc Travers Montaneros Condominium Association Town of Vaii Planning; and Environmental Commission • Dr. and Mrs. Michael Clayman 1440 Church Street, N.W. ~ • Apartment 504 Washington, DC 20005 phone 202-265-5556 fax 202-265-4749 Montaneros #214, Vail, CO email elainen,cosmeticdds.com May 4, 2006 Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Commission Members: We are writing to express our opposition to the proposed expansion by Lions Square North. We purchased a condominium in Montaneros a year and a half ago. We are a couple nearing retirement, and we plan to spend our summers, and a portion of the winter in Vail. Beautiful • views and bright sunshine are what attracted us to Montaneros. We sit on our balcony, looking out on the mountains, greeted by a sweeping vista of ski nuts and blue skies. Our condo is on the 2"d floor. If Lions Square North proceeds as planned, our views, warmth and sunshine will be gone. Every homeowner in Montaneros recently paid an assessment to upgrade our building's exterior. We hope that Lions Square North will do an exterior upgrade as well. However, it should not do so at the expense of its neighbors. Any changes to Lions Square North that increase the height of the building will adversely affect Montaneros. Certainly, the addition of the towers will change everything. The Montaneros pool area will become a shaded and much less desirable place to relax and enjoy. The quality of our desired experience will be permanently downgraded. We have just completed interior renovations to our condo unit in anticipation of spending more time in our Vail home. Our expenditures-the initial investment, and the cost of upgrading our condo-were based on the assumption that our property would hold its value. It is most disconcerting to contemplate the negative impact of the Lions Square North new construction on our property's value. The Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan (the LRMP) expresses concern with such issues, In Section 4 of the LRMP, Recommendations -Overall Study Area", the Town determined: "as development and redevelopment occur in Lionshead, it will be vital to protect visual connections to the ski mountain. These visual relationships strengthen the identity of Lionshead as an alpine resort... Visual connections to the natural environment should be established utilizing the following • techniques: 4.3.1.1 View Corridors. Creating and establishing view corridors is an effective way to link the urban core of Lionshead to the natural environment of Gore Creek and the mountain. The master plan is recommending the creation of several dedicated public view corridors. In addition, all private development and redevelopment should endeavor to create visual connections from and throush their properties." (Emphasis added) The LRMP recognizes in Section 4.3.1.2 the east-west orientation of buildings in Lionshead and proposes a solution to their impeding views of Vail's natural environment. It states: The predominant east-west orientation of buildings in Lionshead acts a visual and. physical barrier, interrupting the connection to the natural environment. It should. be the priority in future development to orient vertical building masses along a north-south axis whenever possible. This will help. accomplish the following obbjectives: a. Sun Access, b. View from New Buildings, e. Views from Existing Buildings, d. Creation of Streets. (Emphasis added) It seems clear that the proposed changes to Lions Square North do not meet these objectives. Quality of life is why we have chosen Vail. Everything in life is pot about maximizing monetary profit. Lions Square North can accomplish building upgrades without doubling in height and irreversibly impacting Montaneros. We are asking for your assistance in preserving that special • quality of life for the Montaneros homeowners. Sincerely yours, Elaine Clayman Michael Clayman • May 11, 2006 • Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 RE: Lion Square North Remodel Dear Sir or Madam: We have reviewed Lion Square North's Preliminary plans for remodel and we for the foregoing reasons most vehemently, protest the approval of such plans. We are the owners of unit 208 Montaneros, which is on the lower level just above the parking garage. The unit is located on the eastern section of the complex. The Arrabelle project has blocked all views to the east. If the Lions Square North project is approved it will block our southern or mountain view. The combination of both plans will significantly diminish the value of our investment. In addition to the above we are concerned for the encroachment of the property and the shading of the common area which includes the pool, hot tub and landscaping. • Thank you for your consideration. n inlrly ~~ Mark .O'Dell 1310 Highway 33 Kearney, MO 64060 Tele 816-628-6668 cc: Alexander A. Preiser Johnson and Repucci LLP 2521 Broadway, Suite A Bolder, CO 80304 • 303 442 01 91 Johnson & Repuccl LLP vv/ ~.+/.vvu IJ.JB ran ovoro4acoa ~~ 09:12:03 a.m. 06-23-2006 24 /61 duns UU1L'R MAIi i ~ IQ 003/003 James L. Johnson Business Phone & Address (b08) 754-1159 ~ FAX (608) 754-3288 • May 19, 2006 Plarrttitrg and Economic DevelopmenR Commission Depattmeut of Community Development Town of Vail 75 S. Frantagc Road 'Var'l, CO 81657 Dear Commissioa Members, As owaas of Montaneros Unit #308 neighboring the proposed Lion's Square Lodge North Major Exterior Alteration as presorted by Vielo Devclop,~..~., ~,?, we want to go oa rocard as STRONC}LY OPPOSED to this project as x...anted. ~ It would bavo a tt~jor ne~ativo impact upon our pmpcrty. Our objection to the plans as presented are based on at least the following major issues: 1. Property line setback and cncroachmeat upon ow,...,rerty. 2. Major mapacrt upon out views. 3. Mt#jor iatpect on sue shading on our property - ems,, r.,,ia11y our pool, hot tub, and sun deck atza.. 4. Major nc$ative impact during construction. 5. Thoso pleas arc nvt ~Y way near satisfying the Lionshead RedeveL.r...ent Master Plan. If this ~,,. ~ e Deal were to be a,. r ~ ,, ved, the negative impact for us would not only :...~ ;.dry the personal enjoyment of ow pray ....:~ at Montaaeros, but would severely hwt rental revenue for us as well. How does Viele expect to build such a tr~onstrosity to and over ow pool area. without shutting us down? We will not agree to staging soaffokling end c.....+L..ction equipment and materia]s on our pool and deck! As you know, we just completed la9t year a u~jvr redeveloprneat acid exterior renovation of our Montatyeros property. Qw plans end eomnleted u~i~et bsd na negetivc impact ort gr~r nelahbor3l Onlyr positive aesthetic impa+o~ ,.,....,..ts to ow Lionshead noighborhood wec+e acc,,,.~,lished, which benefits everybody. Sincerely yours, S. 1„ Tmi Ann Johnson 1307 WOODMAN RD. • P.O. BOX 3700 • JANESVILLE, WI 53547-3]00 • Scott Wilmoski 10655 West 192°d Place Spring Hill, Kansas 66083 • May 11, 2006 Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Re: Proposed Expansion /Remodel Lionsquare North Commissioners: I have been the owner of Montaneros #217 since 1990 and have enjoyed all of the attributes the town of Vail and, specifically, Lionshead, affords me when I stay in my condo. I also find the unique size and setting of Montaneros to be very appealing. It has come to my attention that Lionsquare North is considering a significant expansion and remodel. I have thoroughly reviewed the proposed drawings that have been submitted for • consideration. While I applaud this building's efforts to update their facility more in line with the Vail theme, I find the proposed expansion to absolutely disregard the impact on the entire Montaneros complex. This expansion would virtually eliminate my view of the Vail Mountain. It would shade our pool area and landscaping that we have spent an exorbitant amount of money, time and planning to create an eye appealing and useful green space. This complex is expanding vertically, as well as horizontally, and creates very little useful green space like most other developments in the Lionhead area. It takes on an appeal more like you would find in Manhattan, New York, than in an Alpine Village. I ain appealing to your long-range planning as you review the Lionshead area to reject this expansion proposal as submitted due primarily to its material impact on an existing revitalized and remodeled structure (Montaneros), as well as the lack of accompanying green space for a development of this size. Should any of you need to discuss this issue in greater detail with me, I will snake myself available. I can be reached at 913/592-2767 or swilmo@aol.com. Sincerely, ~!~(J . Cott Wilmoski cc : Mr. Alexander A. Presser • Johnson & Repucci, LLP 2521 Broadway, Suite A Boulder, Colorado 80304 4 ~^ creltz R.es%devLce X209 ~,au~e~ 12.~:ver Ar~ve Stowe Mouwtaiw, C.~~ 3oo8j- ~j o-4~1-388 1=aX: j j o938-07.9 >/-vu.a~~: va~~-~u.s~kC~?covu.cast.wet Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Commission Members; I am writing this letter as an owner of a condo in the Montaneros for the past 13 years. My concern centers around the massive expansion plans now being considered at the Lion Square North building. As you are fully aware, the Lion Square North building is directly south of our building and the current plans are made a reality, our pool and plantings will be in the shade in the ime summer months. I realize that our view corridor is not protected, but a major draw to renters and owners in our building is the view of the mountain we currently enjoy. The expansion of Lion Square will totally obliterate these and, as a result, the value of our property. At issue is also an encroachment onto our property and proposed exposed parking spots. All of our owners are in total agreement with the idea of improving the appearance of Lionshead and, to this end, as owners in Montaneros, took on a major assessment to improve our building's exterior and install a sprinkler system. The owners of Lion Square North could have followed our lead, paid an assessment and improved the exterior appearance of their building. Instead, they have opted to turn over their building to a contractor and ignore their neighbors to the north. `This disregar for neighbors would never happen in Aspen. Please, do not let it happen in ~ Vail. ! -~ , ~~ 7 i ~: Mq~ st s'ncere our , t an G e~ Unit 21 1 ontaneros Mr. Bill Gibson and Alexander A. Preiser 05/19/2006 13:46 FAX 6087543288 LIONS QUICK MARTS f~0021002 James L. Johnson Business Phone & Addres3r (608) 754-1159 • FAX (6p8) 754-3288 May 19, 2006 Planning and Economic Development Commission Depa. u,~ent of Coxnmuruty Development Town of Vail 75 5. Frontage Road Va~1, CO 81657 bear Co~,;ssion Members, As owners of Montaneros Unit #308 neighboring the proposed Lion's Square Lodge Nozth Major Exterior Alteration as presented by Viele Development, we want to go on record as STRONGLY OPPOSED to tons project as presented, ~ It would have a major neba«~e impact upon our property. Our objection to the plans as presented are based ota at least the following major issues: 1. Property Iir~e setback ar~d encroachment upon our property. 2. Major impact upon our views. 3. Major impact on sun shading on our property -especially our pool, hot tub, and sun deck area. 4. Major negative impact during construction. 5. These plans are not any way near satisfying the Lionshead Redevelopmerrt Master Plan. If this proposal were to be approved, the negative impact for us would not only i...f,~de the personal enjoyment of our property at Montaneros, but would severely hurt rental revenue for us as well. PIow does Viele expect to build such a monstrosity to and over our pool area without shutting us down? We will not agree to staging scaffolding and construction equipment and materials on our pool and deck! As you know, we just completed last year a major redevelopment and exterior renovation of our Montaneros property, Our ~lar~s and completed nroiect had no negative impact on oar neighbors! Only positive aesthetic :u.t,~ovements to our Lioz~shead neighborhood were accomplished, which benefits everybody, Sincerely yours, Jim an Ann Johnson ~t • 1307 WOODMAN RD. • P.O. BOX 3100 • JANESVILLE, WI 53547-3100 __ r---~,-~ -_ x_ ,. Leslie Tillman.-.,Fwd Lions _Square North From: Bill Gibson • To: Leslie Tillman Date: 06/23/2006 12:59:56 PM Subject: Fwd: Lions Square North »> "Rudders, Andrew" <AHuddersCa~oraubard.com> 06/20/2006 9:16:20 AM »> Dear Mr. Gibson: Page 1 Attached is a copy of my petition opposing the redevelopment of Lions Square North. In addition to the statements of the formal petition, I just want to let you know that I purchased my unit a couple of years ago, before all the redevelopment plans started to become public. Since then, I have become increasingly upset by the amount of building and the sizes of the buildings proposed and being built in the Lionshead area. I live in New York City, and I have the impression that the Lionsquare area is becoming a much more urban development in a very short timeframe than the village in which I originally bought. Overall, my impression and belief is that the quality of life and holiday experience is decreasing. I find that I am taking my vacations elsewhere rather than going to Vail as a result of all the changes around my unit. When I go to the trouble of flying to go skiing or biking I want to get away from the big city environment that is some much a part of my life in New York. Yes, Vail -Lionshead is not the concrete jungle of New York City, but it is no longer the mountain village of several years ago. I am not against the overall intent of improvement of the Lionshead area. But the Lions Square Lodge development is purely for pecuniary gain of that complex and the builders and related industries. The expansion, to my mind is not contributing to the betterment of the services of the area. Rather, it is merely • a further impingement on the environment and my complex at the cost of both. It will mean more cars, more noise, more pollution in the immediate area, less light, impaired views if any are left and greater urbanization of the village. There is an overall acceptance and encouragement of urban sprawl that is occurring in Vail. I cannot see that there is a need for more residential or rental units in the immediate area of the gondola at the cost of the aforementioned factors. I urge that general development be encouraged down valley or on the north side of I-70 and improvement to the public transportation of the town and county that would make those areas more accessible to the central village and the ski resources such that residents and visitors living and staying in those other areas would not believe or feel themselves isolated. I urge you and the planning commissions of the town of Vail to reconsider the proposal of Lions Square Lodge and deny them. Andrew Rudders Andrew D. Rudders Graubard Miller The Chrysler Building 405 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10174-1901 Phone: 212-818-8614 Fax: 212-818-8881 Visit our web site at www.oraubard.com The information contained in this a-mail message is privileged and confidential information and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended • recipient, or is the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you Andrew D. Hudders • 718 Broadway - 3B New Yorlc, New York 10003 ~~,~+ Unit 311 641 West Lionshead Circle Vail, Colorado 81657 Tune 19, 2006 Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Dear Committee Members: Please consider this letter with other letters from unit owners in Montaneros as a petition opposing the proposed expansion submitted by Lion Square Lodge -North Building (hereinafter referred to as "LSN"). We the undersigned are owners of units in the Montaneros Condominium building, and taxpayers in the Town of Vail The proposed expansion is contrary to the intent and purpose of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan (hereinafter the "Master Plan") and violates the Development Ordinances of the Town of Vail. The proposed construction which includes two towers, 82 feet in height, and increases of the height of the center section portion of the building from the existing 35 feet to 42.5 feet, will substantially and adversely impact Montaneros, its owners and all of the guests who visit Vail and stay at Montaneros. A. LACK OF SUNLIGHT With regard to the sun/shade analysis presented by LSN, it indicates that at the present time the existing LSN building has no impact on the Montaneros property during either the summer or winter. If the proposed massive expansion is approved, the Montaneros building and units will be engulfed in shade throughout the day during the winter months. The pool and hot tub which are used by owners and guests will be in the shade, rather than the sunshine. Because much of the area will be always in the shade, ice will not melt causing potentially dangerous conditions. During the summer months, the pool will be in the shade and additionally, we believe that the sun/shade analysis for the proposed building presented to the Board is incorrect and insufficient because it only shows the sun and shade analysis on two specific dates. Additionally, the increased shade created by the towers will cause the pedestrian walkway between LSN and the new Arabelle project to be in shade during the latter portion of the winter days. The Town of Vail has recognized both in its Development Ordinances and Master Plan that among their purposes is to ensure adequate light, air, open space and other appropriate amenities to maintain . the desirable qualities of Lionshead. Specific purposes as set forth in 12-1-2:b of the Zoning ;00041066 / 3; I>6198.1 Ordinance are "to provide for adequate light..." and to "conserve and maintain established • community qualities and economic values. This proposed project eliminates adequate light and air. B. MOUNTAIN VIEWS AND CONNECTION TO NATURAL ENVIRONMENT One of the primary desirable qualities which Vail desires to be preserved is the view of the mountain and its natural beauty. At the pi°esent time, the Montaneros unit owners have an expansive view of the mountain and sky. The proposed building expansion by LSN would destroy these mountain views. These views are one of the primacy reasons for owning property in Vail, or visiting Vail. Visitors come to Vail to enjoy this experience. The Master Plan in Section 4.3.1.1 establishes public view coi7•idors to protect views in public areas and suggests that "all private development and redevelopment should endeavor to create visual connections from and through their properties." The Master Plan further provides in Section 4.3.2, "physical connections to the natural environment are essential to the experiential quality of a mountain resort." The vision statement of the architectural design guidelines in the Master Plan also addresses specific design considerations "such as addressing views." The purpose of the architectural design guidelines as set forth in Section 8.2 is to "enhance the existing experience within the community, improve the quality of life, focus direction for future growth, create visual harmony and improve property values for businesses and homeowners." The proposed massive expansion by LSN rather than creating visual harmo>ry and connections to the mountain and creating connections to the environment as part of the experiential quality of a first class mountain resort, eliminates visual connections. In section 12-1-2:1a of the zoning ordinance of the Town of Vail, the Town has recognized that the ordinance's general purpose is to promote development of the Town that "will conserve and enhance its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of high quality: Specific purposes as set forth in 12-1-2:b of the Zoning Ordinance are "to provide for adequate light..." and to "conserve and maintain established community qualities and economic values. It is clear that the proposed expansion by LSN is contrary to the intent and purpose of both t11e zoi~ig ordinance and the Master Plan as it relates to views of the mountain, light and air and maintaining economic values. C. SETBACKS With regard to the LSN proposed building itself, we strongly object to any building that is in violation of any section of the zoning ordinances, including the setback requirements. LSN proposes to build an 82 foot eastern tower atop an existing one-story building which is built to the property line and has an easement for a deck overhang onto the property of Montaneros. Montaneros disputes that LSN has a prescriptive easement on Montaneros property for this encroaclmlent or for any other purpose. It has been indicated to the Town that it is no longer the intent of LSN to rebuild the existing one-story building but rather to "leave it in place." However, construction of the proposed multi-story tower atop the existing one-story building will undoubtedly require, at a minimum substantial reconstruction of the existing building. This type of reconstruction of a nonconforming structure is not merely an enlargement of the existing structure as may be permitted under the Town Code, but rather is contrary to the Tov~ni Code 0004 1066 / 3 I i619R I which provides for the limitation of the number and extent of nonconforming uses. Therefore, construction of the east tower of the proposed LSN redevelopment without a variance, which • cannot be justified under these circumstances, violates the Town Code. Further, the easement which allowed for the existence of the existing structure is for that purpose only. To change the use now existing in any way would be a violation of that easement. The western tower appears to be less than 20 feet from the property line. As the PEC is aware, the properties upon which Montaneros and LSN are located, formerly were one lot. Montaneros was already constructed at the time a portion of its lot was transferred to the builders of LSN. Although Montaneros' western section is immediately adjacent to the property line, it was not when built. Accordingly, rather than a 10 foot setback, LSN should he compelled to have at least a 20 foot setback from the property line to the west to meet the intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance. Finally, the plans provide for a covered parking structure, the walls and roof of which encroach into the mandatory 10 foot setback. A 20 foot setback also should be required for this structure. D. PARKING AND INGRESS/EGRESS With regard to parking and access to the parking lot, we strongly object to the location of parking spaces within the mandatory 10 foot setback. In its plans, LSN proposes to eliminate all of the existing green area between its building and Montaneros and replace it with a building, ingress/egress ramp and a paved parking lot. This is clearly contrary to the interest and purpose of the Master Plan and Development Ordinance. It is requested that any addition to parking be beneath the Lions Square condominium building in accordance with the off street parking and loading requirements set forth in the Ordinance. According to the ordinance, the purpose of off street parking is insulating surrounding land uses from the impact of the parking area and requiring parking to be within the main building in order to avoid or minimize the adverse visual impact of large concentrations or exposed parking (see 12-10-1). LSN should be required to have all its parking within the main building to avoid the exposed parking. It should also be required to conform with all parking and loading zone requirements. Additionally, LSN is proposing a valet parking system that would require numerous attendants and far more space than currently contemplated in order to be able to access several of the contemplated parking spaces. In reality, the parking structure proposed by LSN is not only in violation of the Ordinance but further, it is not a realistic and viable way to park cars. E. NECESSARY EASEMENTS As recognized by Tom Kassmel, "Down Engineer, in his May 16, 2006 memorandum, Town approval should be conditioned upon recordation of all necessary permanent and temporary easements for construction. In his June 2, 2006 correspondence to Bill Gibson, Town Planner, Mr. Viele acknowledges this requirement. However, notably, LSN has not requested easements from Montaneros which would undoubtedly be required for the proposed LSN redevelopment, and Montaneros is not willing to grant such easements for the current plan which it considers 0004 I O6G / 3; I>619R.1 • detrimental to the Montaneros property, the Montaneros owners and the Town and its residents • and guests as a whole. Similarly, Montaneros will not approve, or grant easements for, excavation shoring which must occur on Montaneros property to support the current proposed LSN redevelopment. For each of the foregoing reasons, we request that the LSN application be denied. Thank you. Very truly yours, ~`.a Unit Owner/Tax Payer • • (1004 1 066 / 3 Ij619S I RllDY BOSCHWITZ xtY#P~ #~tt.es >e~~tt.e (1978 - 1991) June 21, 2006 Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Dear Committee Members: Please consider this letter with other letters from unit owners in Montaneros as a petition opposing the proposed expansion submitted by Lion Square Lodge -North Building (hereinafter referred to as "LSN"). We the undersigned are owners of units in the Montaneros Condominium building, and taxpayers in the Town of Vail. The proposed expansion is contrary to the intent and purpose of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan (hereinafter the "Master Plan") and violates the Development Ordinances of the Town of Vail. The proposed construction which includes two towers, 82 feet in height, and increases of the height of the center section portion of the building from the existing 35 feet to 42.5 feet, will substantially and adversely impact • Montaneros, its owners and all of the guests who visit Vail and stay at Montaneros. A. LACK OF SUNLIGHT With regard to the sunshade analysis presented by LSN, it indicates that at the present time the existing LSN building has no impact on the Montaneros property during either the summer or winter. If the proposed massive expansion is approved, the Montaneros building and units will be engulfed in shade throughout the day during the winter months. The pool and hot tub which are used by owners and guests will be in the shade, rather than the sunshine. Because much of the area will be always in the shade, ice will not melt causing potentially dangerous conditions. During the summer months, the pool will be in the shade and additionally, we believe that the sunshade analysis for the proposed building presented to the Board is incorrect and insufficient because it only shows the sun and shade analysis on two specific dates. Additionally, the increased shade created by the towers will cause the pedestrian walkway between LSN and the new Arabelle project to be in shade during the latter portion of the winter days. The Town of Vail has recognized both in its Development Ordinances and Master Plan that among their purposes is to ensure adequate light, air, open space and other appropriate amenities to maintain the desirable qualities of Lionshead. Specific purposes as set forth in 12-1-2:b of the Zoning Ordinance are "to provide for adequate light..." and to "conserve and maintain established community qualities and economic values. This proposed project eliminates adequate light and air. 5401 EAST RI\7ER ROAD • MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55421 • (?63) 571-2636 • FAx (763) 571-3411 {00041066 / 3} E-MAIL: RBOSCHWITZC~AOL.COM • B. MOUNTAIN VIEWS AND CONNECTION TO NATURAL ENVIRONMENT One of the primary desirable qualities which Vail desires to be preserved is the view of the mountain and its natural beauty. At the present time, the Montaneros unit owners have an expansive view of the mountain and sky. The proposed building expansion by LSN would destroy these mountain views. These views are one of the primary reasons for owning property in Vail, or visiting Vail. Visitors come to Vail to enjoy this experience. The Master Plan in Section 4.3.1.1 establishes public view corridors to protect views in public areas and suggests that "all private development and redevelopment should endeavor to create visual connections from and through their properties." The Master Plan further provides in Section 4.3.2, "physical connections to the natural environment are essential to the experiential quality of a mountain resort." The vision statement of the architectural design guidelines in the Master Plan also addresses specific design considerations "such as addressing views." The purpose of the architectural design guidelines as set forth in Section 8.2 is to "enhance the existing experience within the community, improve the quality of life, focus direction for future growth, create visual harmony and improve property values for businesses and homeowners." The proposed massive expansion by LSN rather than creating visual harmony and connections to the mountain and creating connections to the environment as part of the experiential quality of a first class mountain resort, eliminates visual connections. In section 12-1-2:1 a of the zoning ordinance of the Town of Vail, the Town has recognized that the ordinance's general purpose is to promote development of the Town that "will conserve and enhance its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of high quality: Specific purposes as • set forth in 12-1-2:b of the Zoning Ordinance are "to provide for adequate light..." and to "conserve and maintain established community qualities and economic values. It is clear that the proposed expansion by LSN is contrary to the intent and purpose of both the zoning ordinance and the Master Plan as it relates to views of the mountain, light and air and maintaining economic values. C. SETBACKS With regard to the LSN proposed building itself, we strongly object to any building that is in violation of any section of the zoning ordinances, including the setback requirements. LSN proposes to build an 82 foot eastern tower atop an existing one-story building which is built to the property line and has an easement for a deck overhang onto the property of Montaneros. Montaneros disputes that LSN has a prescriptive easement on Montaneros property for this encroachment or for any other purpose. It has been indicated to the Town that it is no longer the intent of LSN to rebuild the existing one-story building but rather to "leave it in place." However, construction of the proposed multi-story tower atop the existing one-story building will undoubtedly require, at a minimum substantial reconstruction of the existing building. This type of reconstruction of a nonconforming structure is not merely an enlargement of the existing structure as may be permitted under the Town Code, but rather is contrary to the Town Code which provides for the limitation of the number and extent of nonconforming uses. Therefore, construction of the east tower of the proposed LSN redevelopment without a variance, which • cannot be justified under these circumstances, violates the Town Code. Further, the easement {00041066/3} which allowed for the existence of the existing structure is for that purpose only. To change the use now existing in any way would be a violation of that easement. • The western tower appears to be less than 20 feet from the property line. As the PEC is aware, the properties upon which Montaneros and LSN are located, formerly were one lot. Montaneros was already constructed at the time a portion of its lot was transferred to the builders of LSN. Although Montaneros' western section is immediately adjacent to the property line, it was not when built. Accordingly, rather than a 10 foot setback, LSN should be compelled to have at least a 20 foot setback from the property line to the west to meet the intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance. Finally, the plans provide for a covered parking structure, the walls and roof of which encroach into the mandatory 10 foot setback. A 20 foot setback also should be required for this structure. D. PARKING AND INGRESS/EGRESS With regard to parking and access to the parking lot, we strongly object to the location of parking spaces within the mandatory 10 foot setback. In its plans, LSN proposes to eliminate all of the existing green area between its building and Montaneros and replace it with a building, ingress/egress ramp and a paved parking lot. This is clearly contrary to the interest and purpose of the Master Plan and Development Ordinance. It is requested that any addition to parking be beneath the Lions Square condominium building in accordance with the off street parking and • loading requirements set forth in the Ordinance. According to the ordinance, the purpose of off street parking is insulating surrounding land uses from the impact of the parking area and requiring parking to be within the main building in order to avoid or minimize the adverse visual impact of large concentrations or exposed parking (see 12-10-1). LSN should be required to have all its parking within the main building to avoid the exposed parking. It should also be required to conform with all parking and loading zone requirements. Additionally, LSN is proposing a valet parking system that would require numerous attendants and far more space than currently contemplated in order to be able to access several of the contemplated parking spaces. In reality, the parking structure proposed by LSN is not only in violation of the Ordinance but further, it is not a realistic and viable way to park cars. E. NECESSARY EASEMENTS As recognized by Tom Kassmel, Town Engineer, in his May 16, 2006 memorandum, Town approval should be conditioned upon recordation of all necessary permanent and temporary easements for construction. In his June 2, 2006 correspondence to Bill Gibson, Town Planner, Mr. Viele acknowledges this requirement. However, notably, LSN has not requested easements from Montaneros which would undoubtedly be required for the proposed LSN redevelopment, and Montaneros is not willing to grant such easements for the current plan which it considers detrimental to the Montaneros property, the Montaneros owners and the Town and its residents and guests as a whole. • j 0004106(/ 3 } Similarly, Montaneros will not approve, or grant easements for, e avation shoring which must occur on Montaneros property to support the current proposed N rede elopment. For each of the foregoing reasons, we request that the LSN pplication be enied. Thank you. Very truly ours,' I' V ` R Bosch itz Orig nal Unit Oiwner (since building was constructed) U.S.'Senator (R, MN 1978-91) U.S ~Ambassadpr to the UN Commission ~~ on Hu ~ n Rights • • { 00041066 / 3 } 303 442 0191 Johnson & Repuccl LLP 09:07:53 a.m. 06-23-2006 10 /61 Telephone 717-643770 • Email Malweiss59(~yahoo.com Malcolm D. Weiss DO. Board Certi£ed in Family Practice 1189 Detwiler Drive York, Pennsylvania 17402 June 19, 2006 From: Property owner unit 210 Montaneros Condominium Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Dear Committcc Members: Please consider this letter with other letters from unit owners in Montaneros as a petition • opposing the proposed expansion submitted by Lion Square Lodge -North Building (hereinafter referred to as "LSN"). We the undersigned are owners of units in the Montaneros Condominium building, and taxpayers in the Town of Vail. The proposed expansion is contrary to the intent and purpose of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan (hereinafter the "Master Plan") and violates the Development Ordinances of the Town of Vail. The proposed construction which includes two towers, 82 feet itl height, and increases of the height of the center section portion of the building from the existing 35 feet to 42.5 feet, will substantially and adversely impact Montaneros, its owners and alI of the guests who visit Vail and stay at Montaneros. the mandutorv 10 foot setback. A 20 foot setback also should be required for this structure. D. PARKING AND INGRL'SS/EGRESS With regard to parking and access to the parking lot, we strongly object to the location of parking spaces within the mandatory 10 foot setback. In its plans, LSN proposes to eliminate all of the existing green area between its building and Montaneros and replace it with a building, ingress/egress ramp and a paved parking lot. This is clearly contrary to the interest and purpose A. LACK OF SUNLIGHT With regard to the sunshade analysis presented by LSN_ it indicates that at the present time the existing LSN building has no impact on the Montaneros property during either the summer or winter. If the nronoscd massive expansion is aoorovcd. the Montaneros buildjpe and units will (00041066 / 3 } • 303 442 01 91 Johnson & Repuccl LLP 09:08:16 a.m. 06-23-2006 11 161 • be erreulfed in shade throughout the day durine the winter months. The Wool and hot tub which are r~seci by owners anal ~Irests will be in the shade. rathcr than the sunshine. Because much of ~e arca will he always in the shade. ice will not melt causing notentially daneerous conditions. Dunne the summer months. the Wool will be in the shade and additionally. we believe that the sunlshade analysis for the nronoscd huildinp presented to the Board is incorrect and insufficient becai,rse it only shows the sun and Shade analysis on two snecific dates. Additionally. the increased shade created by the towers will cause the nedestria~ walkway between LSN and the new A}-abclle nroiect to be in shade during the latter nortion of the wintcr days. The Town of Vail has recognized both in its Development Ordinances and Master Plan that among their purposes is to ensure adequate light_ air. oven space and other anoropriate amenities to mainta~ the desirable qualities of Lionshead. Sneciftc nurooses as set forth in 12-1-2:b of the Zoning Ordinance are "to provide for adequate light..." and to "conserve and maintain established community qualities and cconomic values. This oroposed nroiect eliminates adequate light and air. B. MOiJN'1~AIN VTF.WS AND f'QNNECTInN TO NATTTRAL ENVIRONMENT One of the primary desirable qualities which Vail desires to be preserved is the view of the rnounlain and its natural beauty. At the present time, the Montaneros unit owners have :an expansive view of the mountain and sky. The proposcd building expansion by LSN would destroy thcsc mountain views. These views are one of the primary reasons for owning property in Vail, or visiting Vail. Visitors come to Vail to enjoy this experience. The Master Plan,in Section 4.3.1.1 establishes public view corridors to protect views in public areas and suggests that "all private development and redevelopment should endeavor to create visual connections from and through their properties." The Master Plan further provides in Section '4.3.2, "physical connections to the natural environment are essential to the experiential quality of a mountain resort." The vision statement of the architectural design guidelines in the Master Plan also addresses specific design considerations "such as addressing views." The purpose of the architectural design guidelines as set forth in Section 8.2 is to "enhance, the existing experience within the community, improve the quality of life, focus direction for future growth, create visual harmony and improve property values for businesses and homeowners." The proposed massive expansion by LSN rather than creating visual harmony and connections to the mountain and creating connections to the environment as part of the experiential quality of a first class mountain resort, eliminates visual connections. In section 12-1-2:1a of the zoning ordinance of the Town of Vail, the Town has recognized that the ordinance's general purpose is to promote development of the Town that "will conserve and enhance its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of high quality: Specific purposes as set forth in 12-1-2:b of the Zoning Ordinance are "to provide for adequate light..." and to "conserve and maintain established community qualities and economic values.' It is clear that the proposed expansion by LSN is contrary to the intent and purpose of both the zoning ordinance and the Master Plan as it relates to views of the mountain, light and air and maintaining cconomic values. • S 00041066 / 3 } 303 442 01 91 Johnson & Repuccl LLP C. SETBACKS With regard to the LSN proposed building itself, we strongly object to any building that is in violation of any section of the zoning ordinances, including the setback requirements. LSN proposes to build an 82 foot eastern tower atop an existing one-story building which is built to the property line and has an easement for a deck overhang onto the property of Montaneros. Montaneros disputes that LSN has a prescriptive eascment on Montaneros property for this encroachment or for any other purpose. It has been indicated to the Town that it is no longer the intent of LSN to rebuild the existing one-story building but rather to "leave it in place." However, construction of the proposed multi-story tower atop the existing one-story building will undoubtedly require, at a minimum substantial reconstruction of the existing building. This type of reconstruction of a nonconforming structure is not merely an enlargement of the existing structure as may be permitted under the Town Code, but rather is contrary to the Town Code which provides for the limitation of the number and extent of nonconforming uses. Therefore, construction of the east tower of the proposed LSN redevelopment without a variance, which cannot be justified under these circumstances, violates the Town Code. Further, the easement which allowed for the existence of the existing structure is for that purpose only. To change the use now existing in any way would be a violation of that easement. `~ The western tower appears to be less than 20 feet from the property line. As the PEC is aware, the properties upon which Montaneros and LSN are located, formerly were one lot. Montaneros was already constructed at the time a portion of its lot was transferred to the builders of LSN. Although Montaneros' western section is immediately adjacent to the property line, it was not when built. Accordingly, rather than a 10 foot setback, LSN should be compelled to have at • least a 20 foot setback from the property line to the west to meet the intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance. Finally, the plans provide for a covered parking structure, the walls and roof of which encroach into of the Master Plan and Development Ordinance. It is requested that any addition to parking be beneath the Lions Square condominium building in accordance with the off street parking and loading requirements set forth in the Ordinance. According to the ordinance, the purpose of off street parking is insulating surrounding land uses from the impact of the parking area and requiring parking to be within the main building in order to avoid or minimize the adverse visual impact of large concentrations or exposed parking (see 12-10-1). LSN should be required to have all its parking within the main building to avoid the exposed parking. It should also be required to conform with all parking and loading zone requirements. Additionally, LSN is proposing a valet parking system that would require numerous attendants and far more space than currently contemplated iii order to be able to access several of the contemplated parking spaces. In reality, the parking structure proposed by LSN is not only in violation of the Ordinance but further, it is not a realistic and viable way to park cars. E. )VECh:SSARY EASEMENTS As recognized by Tom Kassmcl, Town C.ngineer, in his May 16, 2006 memorandum, Town approval should be conditioned upon recordation of all necessary permanent and temporary easements for construction. In his June 2, 2006 correspondence to Bill Gibson, Town Planner, Mr. Viele acknowledges this requirement. However, notably, LSN has not requested easements 09:08:40 a.m. 06-23-2006 12 /61 • {00041066 / 3) 303 442 0191 Johnson & Repuccl LLP 09:09:04 a.m. 06-23-2006 13 /61 • fro-n Montaneros which would undoubtedly he required for the proposed LSN redevelopment, and Montaneros is nol willing to grant such easements for the current plan which it considers detrimental to the Montaneros property, the Montaneros owners and the Town and its residents and guests as a whole. Similarly, Montaneros will not approve, or grant casements tor, excavation shoring which must occur on Montaneros properly to support the current proposed LSN redevelopment. For each of tl,e foregoinS reasons, we request that the LSN application be denied. Thank you. Very truly yours, Malcolm D. B~ Deborah A. Weiss Unit Owner/Tax Payer • • {000410GG/3{ June 19, 2006 Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Dear Committee Members: Please consider this letter with other letters from unit owners in Montaneros as a petition opposing the proposed expansion submitted by Lion Square Lodge -North Building (hereinafter referred to as "LSN"). We the undersigned are owners of units in the Montaneros Condominium building, and taxpayers in the Town of Vail. The proposed expansion is contrary to the intent and purpose of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan (hereinafter the "Master Plan") and violates the Development Ordinances of the Town of Vail. The proposed construction which includes two towers, 82 feet in height, and increases of the height of the center section portion of the building from the existing 35 feet to 42.5 feet, will substantially and adversely impact Montaneros, its owners and all of the guests who visit Vail and stay at Montaneros. • A. LACK OF SUNLIGHT With regard to the sun/shade analysis presented by LSN, it indicates that at the present time the • existing LSN building has no impact on the Montaneros property during either the summer or winter. If the proposed massive expansion is approved, the Montaneros building and units will be engulfed in shade throughout the day during the winter months. The pool and hot tub which are used by owners and guests will be in the shade, rather than the sunshine. Because much of the area will be always in the shade, ice will not melt causing potentially dangerous conditions. During the summer months, the pool will be in the shade and additionally, we believe that the sun/shade analysis for the proposed building presented to the Board is incorrect and insufficient because it only shows the sun and shade analysis on two specific dates. Additionally, the increased shade created by the towers will cause the pedestrian walkway between LSN and the new Arabelle project to be in shade during the latter portion of the winter days. The Town of Vail has recognized both in its Development Ordinances and Master Plan that among their purposes is to ensure adequate light, air, open space and other appropriate amenities to maintain the desirable qualities of Lionshead. Specific purposes as set forth in 12-1-2:b of the Zoning Ordinance are "to provide for adequate light..." and to "conserve and maintain established community qualities and economic values. This proposed project eliminates adequate light and air. B. MOUNTAIN VIEWS AND CONNECTION TO NATURAL ENVIRONMENT One of the primary desirable qualities which Vail desires to be preserved is the view of the . mountain and its natural beauty. At the present time, the Montaneros unit owners have an { 000410GG / 3 ~ expansive view of the mountain and sky. The proposed building expansion by LSN would • destroy these mountain views. These views are one of the primary reasons for owning property in Vail, or visiting Vail. Visitors come to Vail to enjoy this experience. The Master Plan in Section 4.3.1.1 establishes public view corridors to protect views in public areas and suggests that "all private development and redevelopment should endeavor to create visual connections from and through their properties." The Master Plan further provides in Section 4.3.2, "physical connections to the natural environment are essential to the experiential quality of a mountain resort." The vision statement of the architectural design guidelines in the Master Plan also addresses specific design considerations "such as addressing views." ~ The purpose of the architectural design guidelines as set forth in Section 8.2 is to "enhance the existing experience within the community, improve the quality of life, focus direction for future growth, create visual harmony and improve property values for businesses and homeowners." The proposed massive expansion by LSN rather than creating visual harmony and connections to the mountain and creating connections to the environment as part of the experiential quality of a first class mountain resort, eliminates visual connections. In section 12-1-2:1a of the zoning ordinance of the Town of Vail, the Town has recognized that the ordinance's general purpose is to promote development of the Town that "will conserve and enhance its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of high quality: Specific purposes as set forth in 12-1-2:b of the Zoning Ordinance are "to provide for adequate light..." and to "conserve and maintain established community qualities and economic values. It is clear that the proposed expansion by LSN is contrary to the intent and purpose of both the zoning ordinance and the Master Plan as it relates to views of the mountain, light and air and maintaining • economic values. C. SETBACKS With regard to the LSN proposed building itself, we strongly object to any building that is in violation of any section of the zoning ordinances, including the setback requirements. LSN proposes to build an 82 foot eastern tower atop an existing one-story building which is built to the property line and has an easement for a deck overhang onto the property of Montaneros. Montaneros disputes that LSN has a prescriptive easement on Montaneros property for this encroachment or for any other purpose. It has been indicated to the Town that it is no longer the intent of LSN to rebuild the existing one-story building but rather to "leave it in place." However, construction of the proposed multi-story tower atop the existing one-story building will undoubtedly require, at a minimum substantial reconstruction of the existing building. This type of reconstruction of a nonconforming structure is not merely an enlargement of the existing structure as may be permitted under the Town Code, but rather is contrary to the Town Code which provides for the limitation of the number and extent of nonconforming uses. Therefore, construction of the east tower of the proposed LSN redevelopment without a variance, which cannot be justified under these circumstances, violates the Town Code. Further, the easement which allowed for the existence of the existing structure is for that purpose only. To change the use now existing in any way would be a violation of that easement. • The western tower appears to be less than 20 feet from the property line. As the PEC is aware, the properties upon which Montaneros and LSN are located, formerly were one lot. Montaneros { 00041066 / 3 } was already constructed at the time a portion of its lot was transferred to the builders of LSN. • Although Montaneros' western section is immediately adjacent to the property line, it was not when built. Accordingly, rather than a 10 foot setback, LSN should be compelled to have at least a 20 foot setback from the property line to the west to meet the intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance. Finally, the plans provide for a covered parking structure, the walls and roof of which encroach into the mandatory 10 foot setback. A 20 foot setback also should be required for this structure. D. PARKING AND INGRESS/EGRESS With regard to parking and access to the parking lot, we strongly object to the location of parking spaces within the mandatory 10 foot setback. In its plans, LSN proposes to eliminate all of the existing green area between its building and Montaneros and replace it with a building, ingress/egress ramp and a paved parking lot. This is clearly contrary to the interest and purpose of the Master Plan and Development Ordinance. It is requested that any addition to parking be beneath the Lions Square condominium building. in accordance with the off street parking and loading requirements set forth in the Ordinance. According to the ordinance, the purpose of off street parking is insulating surrounding land uses from the impact of the parking area and requiring parking to be within the main building in order to avoid or minimize the adverse visual impact of large concentrations or exposed parking (see 12-10-1). LSN should be required to have all its parking within the main building to avoid the exposed parking. It should also be • required to conform with all parking and loading zone requirements. Additionally, LSN is proposing a valet parking system that would require numerous attendants and far more space than currently contemplated in order to be able to access several of the contemplated parking spaces. In reality, the parking structure proposed by LSN is not only in violation of the Ordinance but further, it is not a realistic and viable way to park cars. E. NECESSARY EASEMENTS As recognized by Tom Kassmel, Town Engineer, in his May 16, 2006 memorandum, Town approval should be conditioned upon recordation of all necessary permanent and temporary easements for construction. In his June 2, 2006 correspondence to Bill Gibson, Town Planner, Mr. Viele acknowledges this requirement. However, notably, LSN has not requested easements from Montaneros which would undoubtedly be required for the proposed LSN redevelopment, and Montaneros is not willing to grant such easements for the current plan which it considers detrimental to the Montaneros property, the Montaneros owners and the Town and its residents and guests as a whole. Similarly, Montaneros will not approve, or grant easements for, excavation shoring which must occur on Montaneros property to support the current proposed LSN redevelopment. For each of the foregoing reasons, we request that the LSN application be denied. Thank you. C] { 00041066 / 3 f • • • { oooa i o~~ i s } Very truly yours, ~~~ Unit Owner/Tax Payer ~ ~j ~ ~ Very truly Yours, Unit Owner/Tax Payer ~~ ~~ ~wMHJ 9~ • (00041066 l 3 } • Ve ly yours, ~~ ~ ~ nit Owner/Tax Payer ~~~ ~~~ • {00041066/3} D. PARKING AND INGRESS/EGRESS With regard to pazking and access to the parking lot, we strongly object to the location of parking • spaces within the mandatory 10 foot setback. In its plans, LSN proposes to eliminate all of the existing green azea between its building and Montaneros and replace it with a building, ingress/egress ramp and a paved parking lot. This is clearly contrary to the interest and purpose of the Master Plan and Development Ordinance. It is requested that any addition to parking be beneath the Lions Square condominium building in accordance with the off street parking and loading requirements set forth in the Ordinance. According to the ordinance, the purpose of off street parking is insulating surrounding land uses from the impact of the parking area and requiring pazking to be within the main building in order to avoid or minimize the adverse visual impact of large concentrations or exposed parking (see 12-10-1). LSN should be required to have all its pazking within the main building to avoid the exposed parking. It should also be required to conform with all pazking and loading zone requirements. Additionally, LSN is proposing a valet parking system that would require numerous attendants and far more space than currently contemplated in order to be able to access several of the contemplated pazking spaces. In reality, the pazking structure proposed by LSN is not only in violation of the Ordinance but further, it is not a realistic and viable way to park cars. E. NECESSARY EASEMENTS As recognized by Tom Kassrnel, Town Engineer, in his May 16, 2006 memorandum, Town approval should be conditioned upon recordation of all necessary permanent and temporary easements for construction. In his June 2, 2006 c.,~~Gspondence to Bill Gibson, Town Planner, • Mr. Viele acknowledges this requirement. However, notably, LSN has not requested easements from Montaneros which would undoubtedly be required for the proposed LSN redevelopment, and Montaneros is not willing to grant such easements for the current plan which it considers detrimental to the Montaneros property, the Montaneros owners and the Town and its residents and guests as a whole. Similarly, Montaneros will not approve, or grant easements for, excavation shoring which must occur on Montaneros properly to support the current proposed LSN redevelopment. For each of the foregoing reasons, we request that the LSN application be denied. Thank you. Very truly yours, ~~ Unit Owner/Tax Payer • {00041066 / 3} must occur on Montaneros property to support the current proposed LSN redevelopment. For each of the foregoing reasons, we request that the LSN application be denied. Thank you. Very truly yours, ~ ~ ~~~ ~ Unit Owner/Tax Payer • • Similarly, Montaneros will not approve, or grant easements for, excavation shoring which must occur on Montaneros property to support the current proposed LSN redevelopment. • For each of the foregoing reasons, we request that the LSN application be denied. Thank you. Very truly yours, a~~c,Qi+c-~~ Diana L. Huckle Unit Owner/Tax Payer #306 • • { 00041066 / 3 } • must occur on Montaneros property to support the current proposed LSN redevelopment. For each of the foregoing reasons, we request that the LSN application be denied. Thank you. Very truly yours, ~~~~ , Unit O r/Tax Payer -~ ~ Z ~~~ ~~~~- • 303 442 0191 Johnson & Repuccl LLP 08:22:49 a. m. 06-23-2006 61 /61 such easements for the current plan which it considers detrimental to the Montaneros property, the Montaneros owners and the Town and its residents and guests as a whole. Similarly, Montaneros will not approve, or grant easements for, excavation shoring which must occur on Montaneros property to support the current proposed LSN redevelopment. For each of the foregoing reasons, we request that the LSN application be denied. Thank you. Very truly yours, Maxine Gleicher Unit Owner/Tax Payer Montaneros Condominium Association Unit 414 Montaneros - PeQpon to PEC.DOC Page 4 of 4 • • •il 303 442 0191 Johnson & Repuccl LLP 09:21 :39 a.m. 06-23-2006 57 /61 such easements for the current plan which it considers detrimental to the Montaneros • property, the Montaneros owners and the Town and its residents and guests as a whole. Similarly, Montaneros will not approve, or grant easements for, excavation shoring which must occur on Montaneros property to support the current proposed LSN redevelopment. For each of the foregoing reasons, we request that the LSN application be denied. Thank you. Very truly yours, Chick Gleicher Unit Owner/Tax Payer Montaneros Condominium Association Unit 316 • . Montaneros -Petition to PEC.DOC Page 4 of 4 303 442 0191 Johnson & Repuccl LLP FROM LRRRY RND'LYN HICK5 FAX NO. 3039866298 D. PARKING ~D 1NC3RESS/EGRESS 09:25:52 a.m. 06-23-2006 Jun. 23 2006 10:07AM P3 With regard to packing and access to tbo parking lot, we strongly object iu the location of parking spaces within the mandatory 10 foot setback. In ik~ plans, I.SN proposal to alirainate all of the eXisti7.lg green arts botween its buildutg and ?vloxtLBtieros and replace it with a buildutg; inl~rnss./ogress ..:..,~ and a paved parking loE. This is clearly contrary to the intzregt and lnirposc of tht Nestor Plan ettd Development Ordinance. It is requested that any addition to parking be beneath the Lions Square condominium budding in aceordanoe with the off strut parking and loading requiretttettts set forih in the Ordinance. Aocordittg to the ordinanco, the purpose of off..:. _.: packing is insulating surrounding land uses from the impact of~the parking area ~d requiring parking t~~ bz within the txtain building in order to avoid or miniuiiza the ad•~ers~e visual impact of large c~mcentrations or exposed parking (sec 1Z-l0-I). LSrT should he required to have all ita parking wiles the main building to avail the axpoced parking. It should also be required to wnf.,.... with all prrt;i,c4g and loading zone regttire~uents. Additionally, I.Sri ie proposissg a valet parking systcin that would require »umervua extendanis ar~d far more epaoe than c~urantly contemplated in order to be able to recces several oftlie contemplated perking spnecs. In rcalits~, the parking structure p...~,,.,,od by LSiv~ is not only in violation of rho Ordinance b~~t fiinher, h is nut n roali.~tio and viable ~vay w park cars. E. NECESSARY EASRMENTS As reoog~vaed by Tom Kasstnel, Town Enginewt, itt his hiay 16, 2006 mesnotandum, Town arr• ~ ~~ should ba oonditioned upon recordation of all nac~sary permanectt and tomporsry c+asemeirts faa~ oonatruatioa In hid 3une 2, 2~~ti correspondenoe~ to 1~ill t3ibson, Town Planner.. Mr., Vivle. acknowledgca this requiteaieat. However, notabh~, LSN has xtot requested tasemtnis from Montanzras which would undoubtedly be required for the r.~~,;3:ed I,SN redar~olopmtatn, and IViontanetas is not willing to grant such caserne~ts fvr the currant plan. which it cott.4idcs~ dttrisnertal to the Montsmaros property, tl~~e Montane o~v~ters and the Town attd its i,~idctrts rntd guests us a whole, Sn~nilarly. Montanrcos will not approve, or giant easements for, exoAV~ttiot~ shoring w-bieh must ooour on Montarieroq r_,~rrrtyto support the currant gropcraed LSN rcdcv,;lopmtmt. Fair aaoh of the foregohig reasons, vwe request that the L,SN application be denied. Thank you. Very truly yours, ~ s ~ /,`~ ld~ren ca• ~ ~i~ .. , ~r?~ ~'ni! Own~er,~'l'aa; Paver Una ~ 3 ~..U 4 /4 C] (00041 666 1 3} 303 442 0191 Johnson & Repuccl LLP 09:06:52 a.m. 06-23-2006 5 161 C7 Peter V. Browning Managing Partner Vail Partners LLC Owners of Montaneros Units 418 and 420 And Tax Payer • ~000410ti6 / 3 } 303 442 01 91 Johnson & Repuccl LLP 09:11 :04 a.m. 06-23-2006 20 /61 JUN-21-2886 12703 AM P. 04 a 20 foot setback from the property line to the west to meet the intent and purpose of the zoning ordinanco. Finally, the plans provide for a covered parking structure, the walls and roof of which encroach into the mandatory 10 foot setback. A 20 foot setback also should be required for this struoture. D. pARKINQ .!LN1~ jj~S~I3ES5/~ With regard to parking and access to the parking lot, we s:.,,.,giy object to the location of pai;~ ug spaces within the mandatory l0 foot setback. 1n its plans, LSN r,.~7,oses to elirnittate all of the existing green area between. its building and Montaneros and replace it with a building, ingress/egross temp and a paved parking lot. This is clearly contrary to the interest and purpose of the Master Plan and Development Ordlnance, it is requested that any addition to parking bo beneath the Lions Square condominium building in accordance with tk~e off street parking and loadinr requirements set forth in the Ordinance. According to the ordinance, rho purpose of off street parkins is insulating surrounding land uses from the impact of the perking area and requiring parking to be within the main building in order to avoid or minimize the adverse visual impact of large concentrations or exposed parking (see 12-10-1). LSN should be required to have all its parking within the main building to avoid the exposed parking. it should also be required to conform with all parking and loading zone requirements. Additionally, L5N is proposing a valet parking system that would require numerous attendants and far more space than currently contemplated in ordar to be able to aaoess several of the contemplated parking spaces. In reality, the. parking structure ,,.,,,,osed by LSN is not only in violation of the Ordinance but ftuther, it is not a realistic and viablo way to park cars. E. NECIrSSARY EASEMENTS ~ • As recognized by Tom Kassmel, Town Engineer, is his May 16, 2006 memorandum, T.~ •~.n approval should be conditioned upon recordation of all necessary permanent and temporary easements for construction. In his Juno 2, 2006 correspondence to Bill Gibson, Town Planner, Mr. Viele acknowledges this requirement. However, notably, L5N has not requested easements from Montanems which would undoubtedly be required for the proposed LSN redevelopment, and Moataneros is not willing to grant such easements for the current plan which it considers dctrimcntal to the Montancros property, the Montaaeros owners and the Town and its residents and guests as a whole. Similarly, Montancros w111 not approve, or grant easements for, excavation shoring which must occur on Montancroa property to support the current ....rased LSN redevelopment. For each of the foregoing reasons, we request that the LSN application be denied. Thank you. aY Y -~~ Unit Owner sx Payer p-VBtt~-~ R~MocE} Vt`t 1S '102 toona,osa i 3l (~{ pry PtQ.OPE RT l'~j • parking lot. This is clearly contrary to the interest and purpose of the Master Plan and Development • Ordinance. It is requested that any addition to parking be beneath the Lions Square condominium building in accordance with the off street parking and loading requirements set forth in the Ordinance. According to the ordinance, the purpose of off street parking is insulating surrounding land uses from the impact of the parking area and requiring parking to be within the main building in order to avoid or minimize the adverse visual impact of large concentrations or exposed parking (see 12-10-1). LSN should be required to have all its parking within the main building to avoid the exposed parking. It should also be required to conform with all parking and loading zone requirements. Additionally, LSN is proposing a valet parking system that would require numerous attendants and far more space than currently contemplated in order to be able to access several of the contemplated parking spaces. In reality, the parking structure proposed by LSN is not only in violation of the Ordinance but further, it is not a realistic and viable way to park cars. E. NECESSARY EASEMENTS As recognized by Tom Kassmel, Town Engineer, in his May 16, 2006 memorandum, Town approval should be conditioned upon recordation of all necessary permanent and temporary easements for construction. In his June 2, 2006 correspondence to Bill Gibson, Town Planner, Mr. Viele acknowledges this requirement. However, notably, LSN has not requested easements from Montaneros which would undoubtedly be required for the proposed LSN redevelopment, and Montaneros is not willing to grant such easements for the current plan which it considers detrimental to the Montaneros properly, the Montaneros owners and the Town and its residents and guests as a whole. Similarly, Montaneros will not approve, or grant easements for, excavation shoring which must occur on Montaneros property to support the current proposed LSN redevelopment. • For each of the foregoing reasons, we request that the LSN application be denied. Thank you. Very truly yours, CL~ ~ . acque ine E. Irwin Revocable Trust Jacqueline E. Irwin, Trustee Unit 421 L~ {00041066 / 3 } 303 442 0191 Johnson & Repuccl LLP 09:17:56 a.m. 06-23-2006 44 /61 ...,. iii ivvv vi .v~ rnn at.j,~eeou~e q1-'u 1(jJ005 • must occtu on Moataaeros r..,~rerty to support the eiurcat proposed L3N rcdCVr.1~,,...w~t. For each of tha foregoing reasons, we requost that the LSN application be dt~uied_ Thank you. very t>~y yours, ~-- ~ ~~~ 7 Unit Owner!'i'ax Payer • • i D. PARKING AND INGRESS/EGRESS With regard to parking and access to the parking lot, we strongly object to the location of parking spaces within the mandatory 10 foot setback. In its plans, LSN proposes to eliminate all of the existing green area between its building and Montaneros and replace it with a building, ingress/egress ramp and a paved parking Iot. This is clearly contrary to the interest and purpose of the Master Plan and Development Ordinance. It is requested that any addition to parking be beneath the Lions Square condominium building in accordance with the off street parking and loading requirements set forth in the Ordinance. According to the ordinance, the purpose of off street parking is insulating surrounding land uses from the impact of the parking area and requiring parking to be within the main building in order to avoid or minimize the adverse visual impact of large concentrations or exposed parking (see 12-10-1). LSN should be required to have all its parking within the main building to avoid the exposed parking. It should also be required to conform with all parking and loading zone requirements. Additionally, LSN is proposing a valet parking system that would require numerous attendants and far more space than currently contemplated in order to be able to access several of the contemplated parking spaces. In reality, the parking structure proposed by LSN is not only in violation of the Ordinance but further, it is not a realistic and viable way to park cars. E. NECESSARY EASEMENTS As recognized by Toin Kassmel, Town Engineer, in his May 16, 2006 memorandum, Town approval • should be conditioned upon recordation of all necessary permanent and temporary easements for construction. In his June 2, 2006 correspondence to Bill Gibson, Town Planner, Mr. Viele acknowledges this requirement. However, notably, LSN has not requested easements from Montaneros which would undoubtedly be required for the proposed LSN redevelopment, and Montaneros is not willing to grant such easements for the current plan which it considers detrimental to the Montaneros property, the Montaneros owners and the Town and its residents and guests as a whole. Similarly, Montaneros will not approve, or grant easements for, excavation shoring which must occur on Montaneros property to support the current proposed LSN redevelopment. For each of the foregoing reasons, we request that the LSN application be denied. Thank you. Ve truly yours, /~ ~ ~7 /cR-f~ G` Unit Owner/Tax Payer • { 00041066 / 3 } Finally, the plans provide for a covered parking structure, the walls and roof of which encroach • into the mandatory 10 foot setback. A 20 foot setback also should be required for this structure. D. PARKING AND INGRESS/EGRESS With regard to parking and access to the parking lot, we strongly object to the location of parking spaces within the mandatory 10 foot setback. In its plans, LSN proposes to eliminate all of the existing green area between its building and Montaneros and replace it with a building, ingress/egress ramp and a paved parking lot. This is clearly contrary to the interest and purpose of the Master Plan and Development Ordinance. It is requested that any addition to parking be beneath the Lions Square condominium building in accordance with the off street parking and loading requirements set forth in the Ordinance. According to the ordinance, the purpose of off street parking is insulating surrounding land uses from the impact of the parking area and requiring parking to be within the main building in order to avoid or minimise the adverse visual impact of large concentrations or exposed parking (see 12-10-1). LSN should be required to have all its parking within the main building to avoid the exposed pazking. It should also be required to conform with all parking and loading zone requirements. Additionally, LSN is proposing a valet parking system that would require numerous attendants and far more space than currently contemplated in order to be able to access several of the conto~~~Ylated parking spaces. In reality, the parking structure proposed by LSN is not only in violation of the Ordinance but further, it is not a realistic and viable way to pazk cars. • E. NECESSARY EASEMENTS As recognized by Tom Kassmel, Town Engineer, in his May 16, 2006 memorandum, Town approval should be conditioned upon recordation of all necessary permanent and temporary easements for construction. In his June 2, 2006 correspondence to Bill Gibson, Town Planner, Mr. Viele acknowledges this requirement. However, notably, LSN has not requested easements from Montaneros which would undoubtedly be required for the proposed LSN redevelopment, and Montaneros is not willing to grant such easements for the current plan which it considers detrimental to the Montaneros property, the Montaneros owners and the Town and its residents and guests as a whole. Similazly, Montaneros will not approve, or grant easements for, excavation shoring which must occur on Montaneros property to support the current proposed LSN redevelopment. For each of the foregoing reasons, we request that the LSN application be denied. Thank you. Montaneros, U rut ~ 1 Unit Owner/Tax Payer • {00041066!3} • • { 00041066 / 3 } Very truly yours, ~a/.s~~ic~- Unit Owner/Tax Payer 7,y~,.,,,~,..V.~W s Gf.~.~ ~~~ • r~ u {00041066/3} Very truly yours, i~~~ ~~~~~~t l Unit Owner/Tax Payer ~~// MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 22, 2006 SUBJECT: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of amendments to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, pursuant to Chapter 2, Section 2.8, Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, to amend Section 2.3.3 Stronger Economic Base Through Increased Live Beds, Chapter 4 Recommendations-Overall Study Area, and Chapter 5 Detailed Plan Recommendations of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan to establish policies for the preservation and enhancement of the number of increased live beds in Lionshead, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: George Ruther I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, the Town of Vail, is requesting a public hearing with the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission to present amendments to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. The proposed application amends the following portions of the Plan: 1) Section 2.3.3 Stronger Economic Base Through Increased Live Beds, 2) Chapter 4Recommendations-Overall Study Area, and 3) Chapter 5 Detailed Plan Recommendations, of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. The purpose of the amendments are to establish written policy for the preservation and enhancement of the total number of "live beds" in Lionshead and to adopt detail plan recommendations for existing and potential development sites where "live beds" presently or potentially may exist. According to the Master Plan, "renewal and redevelopment in Lionshead must promote improved occupancy rates and the creation of additional bed base ("live beds" or "warm beds' through new lodging products. " This amendment is being proposed and shall be considered in accordance with Section 2.8. Adoption and Amendment of the Master Plan. Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. The intended outcome of these amendments would be the possible future adoption of text amendments to the Lionshead Mixed Use - 1 and Lionshead • Mixed Use - 2 zone districts as contained in Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code. The Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission is being asked to review the proposed amendments and then forward a recommendation of either approval, approval with modifications, or denial to the Vail Town Council. A complete outline of the proposed amendments to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan is described in detail in Attachment A to this memorandum. II. BACKGROUND On April 18, 2006, the Vail Town Council adopted Ordinance No. 13, Series Of 2006, an emergency ordinance placing a moratorium on the submission of development applications and building permits in Lionshead until possible amendments to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan ensuring the preservation of accommodation units in Lionshead could be considered by the Town of Vail. On May 16, 2006, the Vail Town Council approved Ordinance No. 15, Series of 2006, on first reading, an ordinance extending the moratorium in Lionshead. On June 20, 2006, the Vail Town Council held a work session to discuss the • Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan amendments. Upon completion of the discussion the Council affirmed their general support for the direction the staff had taken with the amendments. III. PROPOSED MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT Amendments to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan require a public hearing review process as outlined in Section 12-3-6 of the Town Code. If approved, amendments are adopted by resolution by the Vail Town Council. According to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, amendments to the Master Plan must address the following review criteria: How have conditions changed since the plan was adopted? Ten years ago, on November 4, 1996, the Vail Town Council found that "opportunity exists for the public and private sectors to act collaboratively to renew and revitalize this important component (Lionshead) of our community." Since then, the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan was adopted and as a result a significant amount of redevelopment effort has taken place or is underway in Lionshead. Redevelopment pressure has increased dramatically due to the development incentives that have been put in place for Lionshead. It is because of these incentives and the rising cost of real estate in Vail that buildings once thought of as having little or no redevelopment potential are now entertaining offers for buy-outs and considering redevelopment proposals. As a result, the bed base ("live beds" or "warm beds") in Lionshead may be in jeopardy. The applicant believes that the proposed amendments are critical to the continued success of Lionshead and the community. 2 • How is the plan in error? The Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan may be in error in this situation. Chapter 2 of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan outlines the Town's objectives and goals for the enhancement of Lionshead and proposes recommendations, incentives, and requirements for redevelopment and new development of public and private properties. Pursuant to Section 2.3, Policy Objectives, an important issue to be addressed in the Master Plan, and thus in Lionshead, is to create a "stronger economic base through increased live beds." According to Policy Objective 2.3.3 of the Plan, "In order fo enhance the vitality and viability of Vail, renewal and redevelopment in Lionshead must promote improved occupancy rates and the creation of additional bed base ("live beds" or "warm beds') through new lodging products. " With that said, staff has reviewed the Plan for action items which further or enhance the policy objective seeking a stronger economic base through increased live beds. As a result of our review, we found little, if any, action items, master plan recommendations, zoning regulations, or otherwise, that could reasonably be believed to further this important policy objective. Since it is believed that this policy objective remains critical to the vitality and viability of Vail, staff believes that the Plan is in error as it fails to effectively address the • Policy Objective 2.3.3 How would an addition, deletion, or change to the plan be in concert with the plan in general? According to Chapter 2 of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, "This master plan was initiated by the Town of Vail to encourage redevelopment and new development initiatives within the Lionshead study area. Both public and private interests have recognized That Lionshead today lacks the economic vitality of Vail Village, its neighboring commercial district, and fails to offer aworld-class resort experience. Lionshead's economic potential has been inhibited by a number of recurrent themes: lack of growth in accommodation units ("hot beds', poor retail quality, the apparent deterioration of existing buildings, an uninteresting and disconnected pedestrian environment, mediocre architectural character, and the absence of incentives for redevelopment. Redevelopment is critical for Vail and Lionshead if the community is to remain a competitive four-season resort. Other resorts are spending millions of dollars fo upgrade their facilities in order to attract more visitors year-round. Growth in the number of skiers annually has slowed to one to two percent, intensifying competition for market share. Skiers are spending less time skiing and more time shopping, dining out, and • enjoying other off-mountain activities. As a result, the demand for qualify retail shopping and a greater diversity of experiences has dramatically 3 • increased. All of These are sorely in need of improvement in Lionshead. Vail, and specifically Lionshead, will fall behind if the community fails to upgrade the quality of its facilities and correct the existing flaws in its primary commercial nodes. This master plan, developed over a period of two years and with extensive involvement by the community, is a comprehensive guide for property owners proposing to undertake development or redevelopment of their properties and the municipal officials responsible for planning public improvements. The plan outlines the Town's objectives and goals for the enhancement of Lionshead and proposes recommendations, incentives, and requirements for redevelopmenf and new development of public and private properties. It also recommends specific public improvement projects fhat are strategically important to the future success of Lionshead. The master plan is intended to provide direction over the next 15 to 20 years. " The proposed additions or changes to the Plan will not change or alter the fundamental goals and objectives of the Plan. Instead, staff believes that the additions and changes are necessary in order to ensure the continued future success of Lionshead and the community. Through the adoption of the proposed amendments the Town of Vail can be assured that a critical component to the • vitality and viability of Lionshead, that is a stronger economic base through increased live beds, is maintained and enhanced as Lionshead continues to undergo both new development and redevelopment. As presently drafted, there are little, if any, actions items prescribed by the Plan which ensures that Policy Objective 2.3.3 will be achieved. A complete outline of the proposed amendments to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan is described in detail in Attachment A to this memorandum. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends that the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council of the request to amend the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, pursuant to Chapter 2, Section 2.8, Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, amending Section 2.3.3 Stronger Economic Base Through Increased Live Beds, Chapter 4Recommendations-Overall Study Area, and Chapter 5 Detailed Plan Recommendations of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Should the Commission choose to forward a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council, the Community Development Department recommends that the Commission makes the following finding, • "The Commission finds that the proposed text amendments to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan comply with the review criteria 4 • outlined in Section 111 of the memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission, dated May 22, 2006, and that the amendments, as proposed, further the goals, objectives and policies, as stated in Chapter 2 of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan." ATTACHMENT A [Additions are shown in red/Deletions are shown in Policy Objective 2.3.3 -Stronger Economic Base Through Increased Live Beds In order to enhance the vitality and viability of Vail, renewal and redevelopment in Lionshead must promote improved occupancy rates and the creation of additional bed base ("live beds" or "warm beds") through new lodging products. Live beds and warm beds are best described as residential or lodging rooms or units that are designed for occupancy by visitors, guests, individuals, or families on a short term rental basis. In order to improve occupancy rates and create additional bed base in Lionshead, applications for new development and redevelopment projects which include a residential component shall provide live beds in the form of accommodation units, fractional fee club units, lodge dwelling units, timeshare units, attached accommodation units, or dwelling units which are included in a voluntary rental management program and available for short term rental. Further, it is the expressed goal of this Plan that in addition to creating additional bed base through new lodging products, there shall be no • net loss of existing live beds within the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan study area. Chapter 4Recommendations-Overall Study Area Note: According to Chapter 4 of the Master Plan, "This section of the master plan addresses issues that affect Lionshead as a whole. These issues -and recommendations to address them -should be considered in all planning and policy decisions as Lionshead redevelops." 4.13 Live Beds The maintenance, preservation, and enhancement of the live bed base are critical to the future success of Lionshead and as such, special emphasis should be placed on increasing the number of live beds in Lionshead as the area undergoes redevelopment. The Lionshead area currently contains a large percentage of the Town's overall lodging bed base. The bed base in Lionshead's consists of a variety of residential and lodging products including hotels, condominiums, timeshares and hybrids of all three. The vast majority of live beds in Lionshead are not accommodation units in hotels, but instead, in dwelling units in residential condominiums such as the Vail 21, Treetops, Antlers Lodge, Lion Square Lodge, Lifthouse Lodge, Landmark Tower and Townhomes, Lionshead Arcade, and Montaneros, all of which have some form of • rental/property management program that encourages short term rental of dwelling units when the owners are not in residence. It has been the experience in Lionshead that condominium projects which include a voluntary rental • management program have occupancy rates which exceed the occupancy rate of hotel products, and therefore tend to provide more live beds and produce more lodging tax revenues to the Town. Applications for new development or redevelopment which maintain, preserve, and enhance the live bed base in Lionshead have a significantly greater chance of approval in the development review process than those which do not. 4.13.1 Live Bed Definition Pursuant to Policy Objective 2.3.3, live beds (and warm beds) are defined as residential or lodging rooms or units that are designed for occupancy by visitors, guests, individuals, or families, on a short term rental basis. A live bed may include the following residential products: accommodation units, fractional fee club units, lodge dwelling units, timeshare units, attached accommodation units, and dwelling units which are included in a voluntary rental management program and available for short term rental. 4.13.2 Location of Live Beds Live beds should be located in Lionshead pursuant to the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 and 2 zone districts. All properties within Lionshead, when developing or redeveloping and providing new residential or lodging products, should provide live beds as defined herein. 4.13.3 Review of New Development and Redevelopment Projects • The Planning and Environmental Commission shall consider the policies and direction given by this Plan with respect to live beds when reviewing r~ew development and redevelopment projects in Lionshead. Applications for new development or redevelopment which maintain, preserve, and enhance the live bed base in Lionshead have a significantly greater chance of approval in the development review process than those which do not. A proposal's adherence to the policies contained in the adopted master plan will be one of the factors analyzed by staff, the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC), the Design Review Board (DRB), and the Town Council (as applicable) in determining whether to approve or disapprove the specific proposal. 5.13 The Marriott With approximately 276 rooms, the Marriott is the largest eafy supply of hot beds in Lionshead. The single largest structure in Lionshead, it is also very visible, especially from the west. It is consequently a high priority renovation project, and all reasonable measures should be taken by the Town of Vail to encourage and facilitate its enhancement. Specific issues regarding this property are as follows: 5.13.1 Redevelopment or Development of the Parking Structure The best opportunity for new development on the Marriott property is the existing parking structure (figure 5-17). If this site is developed, attention should be given to the relationship between the development, Gore Creek, the Gore Creek recreation path, and the west day lot. Vertical • development should step back from the recreation path, and there should 6 • be a clear separation (most likely a landscape buffer) between the public space of the recreation path and the private space of the residential units. 5.13.2 Infill Opportunities There are several tennis courts on the south side of the Marriott. This area presents an opportunity for low-rise infill development that eases the visual and physical transition from the existing structure to the Gore Creek recreation path. 5.13.3 Opportunities for Facade Renovation Exterior renovation of the Marriott is a community priority, but the size and dimensions of the structure present a challenge, and it is unlikely that the architectural design guidelines (see chapter 8) can be fully met. However, this should not discourage exterior renovation, and the Town of Vail Design Review Board should insure that the intent of the guidelines is met. (This is a basic premise of the architectural design guidelines, relevant to all existing buildings in Lionshead.) 5.13.4 West Lionshead Circle in Front of the Marriott Any future development or redevelopment of the Marriott property should include a continuous secondary pedestrian walk on the south side of West Lionshead Circle. A pavement snowmelt system is strongly recommended because of icing problems on the walkway in winter. • 5.13.5 Preservation of Existing Accommodation Units The Marriott presently contains 276 short term accommodation units. In addition, the Marriott also contains a restaurant, lounge, spa, and meeting space facilities incidental to the operation of the hotel. Given the importance and need for short term accommodations to the vitality and success of the community, any future redevelopment of the site shall ensure the preservation of short term accommodation units on the site. The preservation of short term accommodations should focus on maintaining the number of existing hotel beds and the amount of gross residential square footage on the site as well as requiring the preservation of 276 accommodation units. With this in mind, the quality of the existing accommodation unit room could be upgraded and the rooms could be reconfigured to create multi-room suites. In no instance, however, should the amount of gross residential floor area devoted to accommodation units be reduced. In fact, opportunities for increasing the number of accommodation units beyond the existing 276 units already on-site should be evaluated during the development review process. For example, the construction of "attached accommodation units", as defined in the Zoning Regulations, could significantly increase the availability of short term rental opportunities within the building. 5.15 Lionshead Inn, Vailglo, Enzian Cluster Redevelopment and/or enhancement of the buildings in this cluster at West • Lionshead Circle and South Frontage Road (see figure 5-19) is encouraged. • 5.15.1 The Pedestrian Street The existing structures are recessed from the street, elevated above it, and separated from it by surface parking lots. To improve the pedestrian character of the neighborhood, a better relationship with the street is desirable. The principal objective for redevelopment in this area is to engage the surrounding pedestrian environment, either by adding building elements toward the street or by lowering the finish grade at the entries so that they are closer to the level of the street. 5.15.2 Access and Street Frontage The existing accesses into these properties should be adjusted to align with the opposing curb cuts on the east side of West Lionshead Circle. The street edge should be strengthened for pedestrian use with landscaping, enhanced signage, and retaining walls as described in the site design guidelines, chapter six. The Lionshead Inn t~ secured a permit in the past which is now expired_to add another vehicular access point from the South Frontage Road, and the property owner is encouraged to pursue the ~ ~~t"at opportunity to screen the surface parking lot on the north and regrade the lot to reduce the significant cross-slope. 5.15.3 Building Height Because it sits considerably above the frontage road, the Lionshead Inn is encouraged to explore a ground level or lower floor infill solution if • development scenarios are pursued. Additional building height, if proposed, must conform to the design guidelines. 5.15.4 Live Beds (Applicant's Proposal) The Lionshead Inn properties (which now include the previous Vailglo Lodge) are currently operated as hotel lodging facilities. The existing structures both externally and internally are in need of redevelopment to upgrade the appearance of the facilities and the quality of the guest experience. The structures currently contain accommodation units and other lodge amenities. In order to preserve the existing live bed base on the property, the Lionshead Inn properties, if redeveloped, should include live beds (as defined herein) with an equal amount of gross residential floor area as exists today on the properties. 5.15.4 Preservation of Existing Accommodation Units (Staff Proposal) The Lionshead Inn and Vailglo Lodge presently contain 85 accommodation units. Given the importance and need for short term accommodations to the vitality and success of the community, any future redevelopment of the sites shall ensure the preservation of short term accommodation on the site. The preservation of short term accommodations should focus on maintaining the number of existing live beds and the amount of gross residential square footage devoted to that use on the site. With this in mind, the quality of the existing accommodation unit rooms could be upgraded and the rooms could be • reconfigured to create multi-room suites. In no instance, however, should the amount of gross residential floor area devoted to accommodation • units be reduced. In fact, opportunities for increasing the number of accommodation units beyond the existing 85 units already on-site should be evaluated during the development review process. For example, the construction of "attached accommodation units", "lodge dwelling units", "timeshare units", "fractional fee club units", as defined in the Zoning Regulations, could significantly increase the availability of short term rental opportunities within the building. L' • 9 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING . - . ,~ June 12, 2006 T~WNOFVAQ,'. PROJECT ORIENTATION -Town Council Chambers -PUBLIC WELCOME MEMBERS PRESENT Bill Pierce Anne Gunion Chas Bernhardt Doug Cahill Rollie Kjesbo Bill Jewitt Dick Cleveland Site Visits: MEMBERS ABSENT 1. Gobec Residence - 1462 Aspen Grove Lane 2. Timberline Roost Lodge - 1783 North Frontage Road 3. Lionshead Climbing Wall -Lionshead Sundial Plaza Driver: George Public Hearing -Town Council Chambers 12:00 pm 2:00 pm 10 minutes 1. A request for a final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-7H-5, Conditional Uses, Generally (On AI( Levels of a Building or Outside of a Building), to allow for the relocation of the Lionshead Climbing Wall to the Lionshead Sundial Plaza, located at Tract C, Vail Lionshead Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto, (PEC06-0037) Applicant: Town of Vaif, represented by Charlie Alexander, LMG Inc. Planner: Elisabeth Reed ACTION: Approved with condition(s) MOTION: Cleveland SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE: 7-0-0 CONDITIONS: 1. The applicant and operator shall abide with all of the operation specifications outlined within the memorandum. 2. The applicant shall replace in full any landscaping that is damaged or otherwise negatively impacted during the erection, operation, or removal of the climbing wall operation. 3. The approval of this request shall be based upon approval of the associated design review request. Elisabeth Reed presented the project according to the memorandum. Charlie Alexander responded to Doug Cahill's question regarding access to the water fountain. No public comment was offered. The Commissioners had no concerns about the proposal. 20 minutes •2. A request for a final review of an amendment to an Approved Development Plan, to allow for an increase in Gross Residential Floor Area for Lot 6; and a request for a final review of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Page 1 Code, to amend the allowable Gross Residential Floor Area within the Eleni Zneimer Subdivision located at 1701 F Buffehr Creek Road/Lot 6, Eleni Zneimer Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0039) • Applicant: Patrick and Patricia Ranallo, represented by RAL Architects Planner: Warren Campbell Amendment to the Approved Development Plan ACTION: Approved MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Jewitt VOTE: 7-0-0 Amended Final Plat ACTION: Approved with condition(s) MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Jewitt VOTE: 7-0-0 Conditionlst 1. The applicant shall not record the Amended Final Plat, Eleni Zneimer Subdivision, Lot 6. A Re-subdivision of a Part of Tract A. Lion's Ridae Subdivision. Filina No. 2, prior to August 7, 2006, and only in the event that the Amended Final Plat, E/eni Zneimer Subdivision, A Re-subdivision of a Part of Tract A. Lion's Ridae Subdivision. Filina No. 2, approved by the Commission on November 14, 2005, is not recorded prior to August 7, 2006. If the Amended Final Plat, E/eni Zneimer Subdivision, A Re-subdivision of a Part of Tract A, Lion's Ridae Subdivision, Filina No. 2, is recorded by August 7, 2006, this approval is no longer valid and in effect. Warren Campbell gave a presentation per the staff memorandum. He added that approval of the amendment to the development plan increased the GRFA for Lot 6 and therefore the initially approved GRFA allotment. Patrick Ranallo stated that he appreciated the Town staff working to resolve his concern and was • in agreement with the condition. There was no public comment The Commissioners expressed their support of the application as a reasonable solution to the problem. Commissioner Cleveland requested that the condition in the staff memorandum be amended to state that the Commission's approval of the proposed amended plat would not be valid if the previously approved plat for ail six lots within the Eleni Zneimer Subdivision is recorded by August 7, 2006. 10 minutes 3. A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for amendments to Section 12-7H-5, Conditional Uses; Generally (On all Levels of a Building or Outside of a Building), to allow for seasonal use or structures as a conditional use in Lionshead Mixed Use I District; Section 12-7H-18, Mitigation of Development Impacts, to clarify the inclusion of employee housing as a mitigation of development impacts; Section 12-8A-3, Conditional Uses, to allow for ski runs as a conditional use in the Agricultural and Open Space District; Section 12-8C-3, Conditional Uses, to allow for ski lifts not including loading and unloading areas as a conditional use of the Natural Area Preservation District; Subsection 12-18-5B, Density Control, to clarify limitations on structures which do not conform to density controls; Chapter 14-3, Residential Access, Driveway and Parking Standards, to clarify standards for access, driveway and parking for commercial properties; and Chapter 14-6, Grading Standards, to clarify requirements for retaining walls, Vail Town Code, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0026) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Rachel Friede ACTION: Approved Page 2 MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Jewitt VOTE:: 6-0-1 (Pierce opposed to retaining walls and density aspects) • Rachel Friede introduced the project according to the memorandum. Bill Jewitt commented that he had some concerns with the first text amendment change. He was not comfortable with the duration of the seasonal structures. Dick Cleveland suggested definitions that should be different for "seasonal" and "temporary" structures. He suggested much more latitude for temporary structures and less latitude for seasonal structures which are used as part of permanent structures. Rollie Kjesbo stated that the Commission already had the authority to address each request on an individual basis and regulate its duration, etc. Some discussion occurred regarding a process that would allow for a staff approved temporary structure that was allowed to exist for seven days. Anything that would be set up for a longer time would require a Special Events Permit or a seasonal use or structure conditional use permit. Bill Jewitt opposed the use of the word "runs" in the O and NAP Districts. Vail Resorts repeatedly mentioned that ski runs would not come down to the new lift. It is important that such option never be allowed. Some discussion occurred regarding the definitions of density control. Staff explained to the Commission that no policy change was occurring but that the proposed amendment was simply a clarification of what defined density control. • Bill Pierce asked what the intent of the "bottom of footing" language really implied. Rachel commented that this change was simply clarifying language which already existed. No public comment was offered. A motion was made that added "used more than seven days" to "seasonal use or structure." The motion changed the text amendment to Section 12-8C-3: Conditional Uses, to allow for the conditional use of "ski lifts" in the Natural Area Preservation District and omitted the text amendment to Section 12-8A-3: Conditional Uses. 20 minutes 4. A request for a worksession to review a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7J-12, Major Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of the Timberline Lodge, located at 1783 North Frontage Road/Lots 9-12, Buffehr Creek Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC05-0080) Applicant: Timberline Roost Lodge, LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: George Ruther ACTION: Tabled to June 26, 2006 MOTION: Jewitt SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE: 7-0-0 George Ruther presented the project according to the memorandum. Dominic Mauriello addressed the commission regarding the project, with Greg Gastineau and • Kevin Deighan present as well. Dominic summarized the presentation with a powerpoint presentation. Page 3 Bill Jewitt asked for a color drawing of the project, because the current 3D modeling did not include any shadows, etc. Greg Beamis said that the building is still very big for a residential neighborhood. He is confused • as to how the comments from the public could be included m this new drawing if the new rendering were drawn at the same time. He finds the exterior is exactly the same, a large, block- like building, which is not of high quality. He said the bump-outs, while used for relief, were really used to gain building height. We are only gaining 28 hotel rooms compared to the current numbers at the Roost. There is also the loss of the swimming pool. The dwelling units are not guaranteed to be hot beds. A number of the letters from the previous proposal should be included in this new packet because they are applicable to this new proposal. He does not hear that this will be an inexpensive hotel. He hopes PEC realizes that this is a neighborhood and this building should be in the character of the neighborhood. He wonders: if CDOT does not approve, will this process start over? Phyllis Dixon is concerned with meeting the requirements of the neighborhood and is concerned about calculating building height. In level 4, there are more condo units and asks whether this will comply with building height. She also asked about the easements on the property and where the snow storage will be. She is concerned about the square footage per unit, employee housing units and parking space numbers. Steven Connelly, homeowner in Vail, said that meeting the development standards is important, and this should be taken into consideration. However, he is concerned about losing affordable hotel rooms. It doesn't make sense to attract people to town for the day, but then they have to go to Avon for a hotel room. Bill Pierce said the reduction in mass is a positive thing. It appears to have a significant effect on . the neighborhood, which still needs to be addressed. This is at the discretion of the Planning Commission. George asked if Bill needs more information. Bill wants more views from surrounding properties, showing impact on the neighborhood. Anne Gunion said from a siting standpoint, the project is much better. From the elevation studies, the stepped grades are much better. The flat rooftop is more fitting to the site. The reduction is about 2 stories in some places. The reduction in retaining walls is good too. Could you bring the landscape through the project? She likes the current Roost because there is landscape architecture through the project. Chas Bernhardt agrees with Anne and Bill. Chas agrees that it needs to fit into the neighborhood and the last proposal did not fit in at all. To the neighbors, this has to fit the neighborhood, but is zoned differently and is twice the size, so it will be different. He clarified to a neighborhood person that they reduced GRFA by 25% since the last proposal. Roof articulation has improved since the last proposal. This is going in the right direction. Renderings would be very helpful, with shadowing, etc. Anne added that she is basing comments on the powerpoint, because she does not have the plans in front of her. George asked for 11x17 plans for the PEC for the next session. Dick Cleveland said the reductions are positive and in the right direction. He feels comfortable • with the elevations. He is surprised how big it is, but does not have enough information to make a final decision. He acknowledges that the Roost is gone, and there will be no replacement. Page 4 The new building will be larger, and necessarily so. Before any more time is spent, he would like to see CDOT approval. He would be surprised on latitude given by CDOT. Employee units • should be onsite because there is nothing left elsewhere. He would like them to consider deed restricted affordable housing on site. With the new roof plains and plans, he wonders where the mechanical systems will be. He would also like to see a rental program for the for-sale units. He asked if there is a possibility for the bike path to go onto the property- providing a great benefit to the community. He would like a massing model from the Frontage Road. Bilt Jewitt said the building complies with Item 1 and item 3. Item 2: proposal does not have otherwise significant effect on the neighborhood. The effect on the neighborhood is significantly less than the previous proposal. One issue is traffic generation and seems to help with traffic issues. The height reductions have been significant. Some of the changes in the roofline and the bumpouts will make the building look a lot better. He disagrees with Dominic: commercial building in the residential neighborhood is a PEC issue, not a DRB only issue. Rollie said there are significant improvements in the height of the building. He would like to see the hillside view to the building. Doug Cahill would like to see what approvals are given by CDOT. You are in compliance with the compliance burdens. It needs to fit into the neighborhood and should seem like a smaller building. He requested AIPP plans from Dominic, if they are available. Dominic replied that with CDOT, it is necessary for a final plan. For an access permit, it will expire in a year and is a catch-22 for getting approval before coming back to the PEC. They can add back more hotel rooms, but they wanted to take out some retaining walls. 15 minutes • 5. A request for a final review of a variance, from Section 12-6B-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for a garage addition within the front setback, located at 1462 Aspen Grove Lane/Lot 11, Block 2, Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing 4, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0034) Applicant: Matthew and Doris Gobec, represented by John M. Perkins, AIA Planner: Matt Gennett ACTION: Approved MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Jewitt VOTE: 7-0-0 Matt Gennett made a presentation as per the staff memorandum. John Perkins, representing Matt Dorsal from Cleveland, said the staff memorandum is clear. There was no comment from the Commissioners. 45 minutes 6. A request for a worksession to discuss proposed amendments to Chapters 12-21, Hazard Regulations, 14-7, Geologic/Environmental Hazards, and 14-10, Design Review Standards and Guidelines, Vail Town Code, to adopt Wildfire Regulations and a Wildfire Hazard Map that will require mitigation of high and extreme wildfire hazard zones in the Town of Vail, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0029) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Rachel Friede • ACTION: Tabled to June 26, 2006 MOTION: Cleveland SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE: 7-0-0 Page 5 Rachel Friede introduced the item, with Tom Talbot, Vail Fire and Emergency Services, Eric Luvgren, Eagle County Wildfire Mitigation Specialist and Sean Koenig, Vail GIS Specialist, adding additional materials per the staff memorandum. • Dick Cleveland asked about the appeal process for the site specific analysis. Staff responded that appeals are available pursuant to Chapter 12-3. Cleveland questioned if by adopting a map it impacts homeowner insurance. Eric Luvgren noted that he has not seen anyone dropped or refused coverage, but some insurance companies require mitigation. Rollie Kjesbo noted concerns about the inspection process and how it relates to construction projects. Russ Forest noted that this function would not be absorbed by the building department, but by the Fire Department. Dick suggested forwarding a recommendation to the Council for funding of a wildfire mitigation specialist. . Bill Pierce asked Staff to conduct a sample assessment project for the next meeting and to include costs associated with non-combustible decks, etc. Bill Jewitt noted that this is a hazard that the Town has the responsibility to address to protect people and property. Doug Cahill suggested additional focus on the educational process. Chas recommended education for the Design Review Board. Chas Bernhardt noted his initial concerns about the county's regulations, but the staff has been good to work with and the results have been positive. He does not believe the county process • has not been as onerous as he had feared. 10 minutes 7. Report to the Planning and Environmental Commission of an administrative action approving a request for a minor amendment to SDD No. 6, Vail Village Inn, pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for modifications to the approved building Plans for the Vail Village Inn Phase V (La Bottega), 100 East Meadow Drive/Lot M, Block 5D, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard-thereto. (PEC06-0036) Applicant: Staufer Commercial, LLC and Steve Virion, represented by K.H. Webb Architects Planner: Warren Campbell Warren Campbell gave a presentation regarding staff's approval with conditions of a minor amendment to Special Development District No. 6, Vail Village Inn, to allow for a handicapped accessible restroom expansion for the La Bottega tenant space . There was no public present. The Commissioners agreed to let staff's approval with conditions stand. 10 minutes 8. A request for a fins! review of a final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for the relocation of the common property line between Lots 4 and 7, located 103 and 107 Rockledge Road/Lots 4 and 7, Block 7, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0038) Applicant: Gary Rosenbach and Vernon Taylor, represented by K.H. Webb Architects PC • Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Approved MOTION: Cleveland SECOND: Jewitt VOTE: 7-0-0 Page 6 The applicant's representative, Kyle Webb of K.H. Webb Architects, was available for questions. There were no public or Commissioner's comments. 9. A request fora recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, and Section 2.8, Adoption and Amendment of the Master Plan, Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, to allow for amendments to Articles 12-7H, Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District, and 12-71, Lionshead Mixed Use 2 District, Vail Town Code, and the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, to require no net loss of parking, no net loss of employee housing units and no net loss of accommodation units in Lionshead Mixed Use 1 and Lionshead Mixed Use 2 Districts, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0028) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: George Ruther /Rachel Friede ACTION: Table to June 26, 2006 MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Jewitt VOTE: 7-0-0 10. A request for a final review of a variance, from Section 12-6D-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for a new single family residence within the front and side setbacks, located at 1740 Sierra Trail/Lot 22, Vail Village West Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0015) Applicant: Lois Solis, represented by Michael Suman Architect Planner: Matt Gennett ACTION: Table to June 26, 2006 MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Jewitt VOTE: 7-0-0 11. A request for a final review of a variance from Section 12-6D-9, Site Coverage, pursuant to • Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a residential ,addition, located at 1100 Hornsilver Circle/Lot 7, Block 1, Vail Village Filing 8, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0033) Applicant: Phillip and Jennifer Maritz, represented by Fritzlen Pierce Architects Planner: Matt Gennett ACTION: WITHDRAWN 12. Approval of May 22, 2006 minutes MOTION: Jewitt SECOND: Gunion VOTE: 7-0-0 13. Information Update • Project Orientation 14. Adjournment MOTION: Jewitt SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE: 7-0-0 The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24-hour notification. Please call (970) 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department • Published June 9, 2006, in the Vail Daily. Page 7 • • 1639 PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF EAGLE SS. I, Steve Pope, do solemnly swear that I am a qualified representative of the Vail Daily. That the same Daily newspaper printed, in whole or in part and published in the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, and has a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been published continuously and uninterruptedly in said County of Eagle for a period of more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement and that said newspaper has Published the requested legal notice and advertisement as requested. The Vail Daily is an accepted legal advertising medium, only for jurisdictions operating under Colorado's Home Rule provision. That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in the regular and entire issue of every number of said daily newspaper for the period of 1 consecutive insertions; and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated June 23 A.D. 2006 and that the last publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated June 23 A.D. 2006. ,. In witness whereof has here unto set my hand this 7th day July, ?006 ~~ ~~~ j Pub~i~r/G r~l'11~nager/Editor Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado this '~' of July, ?006. ~~iY P PAMELA J. SCHUL7Z ~•~pF'f,~,C~ J ~amela Joan Schultz Notary Public My Commission expires: November 1, 2007 PLANNING Al PUS 2006 PROJECT ORIENTATION -Town Council Cham- bers -PUBLIC WELCOME 12:00 pm MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Site Visits: 1. SoBs Residence -1740 Sierra Trail Square Lodge North -660 West Lionshead 3. Wild<ire Hazard Mitigation Project Driver: Matt Public tieadng -Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm 15 mintrtes 1. A request for a final review of a var- iance, from Secton 12-6D~, Setbacks, Vail Town ~ Code pursuant to r 12-17, Varian- ces, to allow for a rtew si famiry residence within the front and side setbacks, bceted at 1740 SierraggTraiVlnt 22. Vail Vllage West Filing 1, and (PECO(r0015~~ tails m regard thereto. Applicant: Lois Solis, represented by Michael Surnan Archftect Planner Matt Gannett ACTION: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 30 minutes 2. A request for a final review of a major ezterar alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7H-7, Major F~cterior Alterations or M..~::...a:ans. Vail Tawn Code, to allow for the rerrovation of the Li- on's Square Lodge North, located at 660 West Li- onshead Plaos/Lot 8, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Fil- i((~~Cp~~~se)tting kith details in regard thereto. '~ APpGCarrt: lion Square Lodge North Condomini- um Association, represented by Viele Develop• PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING . ,~ July 10, 2006 Tf?WN ~F VAtf' PROJECT ORIENTATION -Town Council Chambers -PUBLIC WELCOME 12:00 pm MEMBERS PRESENT Chas Bernhardt Doug Cahill Dick Cleveland Anne Gunion Bill Jewitt Rollie Kjesbo Bill Pierce Site Visits: MEMBERS ABSENT 1. Wildfire Hazard Investigation Demonstration -1807 Alpine Drive / 2040 Basingdale Boulevard 2. Solis Residence - 1740 Sierra Trail 3. Nugget Lane Partners - 4269 Nugget Lane Driver: Warren Public Hearing -Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm 10 minutes 1. A request for a worksession to discuss proposed amendments to Chapters 12-21, Hazard Regulations, 14-7, Geologic/Environmental Hazards, and 14-10, Design Review Standards and Guidelines, Vail Town Code, to adopt Wildfire Regulations and a Wildfire Hazard Map that will require mitigation of high and extreme wildfire hazard zones in the Town of Vail, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0029) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Rachel Friede ACTION: Approved MOTION: Bill Jewitt SECOND: Chas Bernhardt VOTE: 7-0-0 Rachel Friede briefly outlined the purpose of the worksession, per the staff memorandum. Tom Talbot from Vail Fire and Emergency Services then made a presentation on a recent fire in the Spraddle Creek Subdivision. Doug Cahill asked if we are able to create defensible space between the Town of Vail and Forest Service property. Tom Talbot answered that we are working with the Forest Service to mitigate these areas. Anne Gunion suggested that the text amendments include a maintenance provision for properties in order to require upkeep on landscaping. Rollie Kjesbo said it is difficult enough to require initial mitigation, and he is unsure whether the town can enforce maintenance. • Dick Cleveland said the town has the ability to abate nuisances and a more likely scenario is to enforce this rather than to require maintenance. This would be an issue for the Town Council. Page 1 He agrees with Rollie that is difficult to enforce anything beyond the application process. He suggested that a condition of TCO be that all diseased trees be removed. • Doug Cahill asked if there is any government funding for mitigation on private property. Tom Talbot responded that the State has been instrumental in helping with funding for properties on Matterhorn Circle. However, these funds are highly competitive. There was no public comment. 20 minutes 2. A request for a final review of a variance, from Section 12-6D-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for a new single family residence within the front and side setbacks, located at 1740 Sierra Trail/Lot 22, Vail Village West Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0015) Applicant: Luis Solis, represented by Michael Suman Architect Planner: Matt Gennett ACTION: Denied MOTION: Rollie Kjesbo SECOND: Bill Jewitt VOTE: 6-1-0(Gunion opposed)) Matt Gennett made a presentation per the staff memorandum. Michael Suman made a presentation on behalf of Luis Solis. Suman outlined three components that created a hardship necessary for a variance. It poses practical difficulties and a hardship in locating the home where it would not encroach into the setbacks. He also discussed the adjacent lots and the difficulties related to those properties. . Bruce Louis, the engineering consultant for the property, reviewed the history of the site and explained why the landslide occurred. Michael Suman posited that the original foundation would not be appropriate as the foundation of the new home. Bruce Louis does not have an opinion about the new home, but said that it is important that the original foundation not be moved in order to prevent another landslide. Suman continued that they have studied numerous options for development of the site but no other option was viable. The excavation required to remove the original foundation would take out the lower half of the site. This would be contrary to efforts to minimize the amount of site disturbance. The impact is significant. The remaining foundation is a hardship, a result of extreme circumstances that are not self-imposed. Luis Solis, the applicant, asked that he be able to safely develop his property. He did not realize the extent of the soil issues and would like to be able to mitigate any hazards. Cindy McAdams, a neighbor to the east, is concerned with compromising the integrity of the lot. The variance concerns her because it would bring a new home closer to her property than as required by the Town Code (setbacks). Luis Solis returned to the podium to respond that since he purchased the home, the address has been on Alpine Drive, not Sierra Trail. • Bill Pierce asked if garages can go into side setbacks where there is a slope over 30%. The Town Code does not permit this and it would require a variance. Pierce also asked questions regarding the other options and the viability of stabilizing a new foundation to the bedrock. Page 2 Anne Gunion asked if they removed the foundation, would the lot be unbuildable. Suman said • that there is the ability to build, but it would be very onerous on the applicant. In order to remove the foundation, the lot would be excavated extensively. Anne said that they would be required to soil nail to stabilize the road anyway. Suman answered that if the foundation is taken out, the soil nails would be three times deeper. Anne asked what the role of the existing foundation will be once the new home is built. Bruce Louis said that the existing foundation will continue to stabilize the hillside. He said if the old foundation is taken out, when the new house is built, there would still need to be additional soil stabilization and a new drainage system in addition to the new home. Anne asked why the house could not be positioned within the allowed area, and not encroach into the side setback. Suman answered that he was trying to get more light into the home. Anne said she sees that the original foundation is a hardship, but the design does not lend to the minimal amount of encroachment into the side setback. Chas had no comments. Dick agrees with others and added that the applicant clearly outlined the problems faced in this property. He said that using the steepest part of the lot is an option but should not be used as the reason for the variance. He added that in 1982, there were many landslides in the Town. It seems counterintuitive to build on the part of the lot that is the steepest and has the most issues. A request for a variance at this time is premature. There should be an effort to access the property from Sierra Trail. Bill Jewitt commented that the owner had previous knowledge of the issues with this lot. High expense is not an unusual circumstance and to grant a variance would be to grant special . privilege. Rollie agreed that the hardship does not qualify for a variance. Doug Cahill agrees that he cannot support a variance when you can reengineer the property to make it work within the allowed building area. Anne Gunion added that she thinks there is a hardship but thinks that when they bought the property, they should have known the issues related to the property. She was also concerned about positioning the access on Sierra Trail because of the condition of that part of the property. 10 minutes 3. A request for a final review of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat, Vail Town Code, to allow for the combination of Lot 1 and Tract A of the Cliffside Subdivision into a single lot, located at 1452 Buffehr Creek Road/ Lot 1 and Tract A, Cliffside Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0042) Applicant: Mike Young Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Approved with condition(s) MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Jewitt VOTE: 7-0-0 Condition(s): 1. The applicant shall add a note to the Second Amended Final Plat of Lot 1. Cliffside Subdivision: A Resubdivision of Lot 1 of Cliffside and Tract "A", Cliffside, stating that a maximum of one dwelling unit is permitted on Lot 1 of the Cliffside Subdivision prior to submitting mylars for Town of Vail signature and recording. Warren Campbell made a presentation per the staff memorandum. • No public comment was added Page 3 The Commission was generally in support of the application. Dick Cleveland asked how much GRFA was currently allowed on the property, to which Warren Campbell stated was • approximately 10,200 square feet. Cleveland had some concerns about combining Tract A to Lot 1, which would increase the allowable GRFA to approximately 11,900 square feet when Tract A was of a shape that would not be buildable but would increase the allowable GRFA on Lot 1. 10 minutes 4. A request for a final review of a variance, from Sections 12-6H-6, Setbacks, and 12-14-17, Setback from Water Course, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for a new front entry and deck addition within the setbacks, located at 103 Willow Place/Lot 4, Block 6, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0043) Applicant: Edelweiss Condominium Association, represented by Larry Deckard Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Approved with condition(s) MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Dewitt VOTE:7-0-0 CONDITION(S): 1. This approval shall be contingent upon the applicant receiving Town of Vail approval of the design review application associated with this variance request. Bill Gibson presented the project according to the memorandum. Larry Deckard, the applicant, made himself available for questions. Mr. Plum, president of the River House association, stated that the originally planned deck to the west was not currently proposed. The applicant agreed that such deck had been removed from • the proposal. Dick Cleveland stated that precedent existed for this type of request. Bill Dewitt asked if the color of the building was going to change. Larry Deckard noted the changes for Commissioner Dewitt. Doug Cahill commented that this was clearly a legally non-conforming instance and the upgrades were in keeping with the environment. 15 minutes 5. A request for a final review of a variance, from Section 12-6C-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, pursuant to chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for a bedroom addition within the front and side setbacks, located at 4269 Nugget Lane/Lot 3, Bighorn Estates Townhouses, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0044) Applicant: Nugget Lane Partners, LLC, represented by Morter Architects Planner: Elisabeth Reed ACTION: Approved with condition(s) MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Dewitt VOTE:7-0-0 CONDITION(S): 1. This approval shall be contingent upon the applicant receiving Town of Vail approval of the design review application associated with this variance request. 2. The applicant shall pave the existing parking area prior to Temporary Certificate of Occupancy by the Town of Vail Community Development Department. • Elisabeth Reed presented the request per the staff memorandum. Leah Mayer from Morter Architects was available for questions. Page 4 Dick Cleveland supported the variance but suggested that he would be more fully supportive of the request if the driveway were to be paved. Bill Jewitt noted that many similar variances in this area had been granted before. Kjesbo and Pierce recommended paving the parking area. Ann Gunion questioned the other Commissioners about increasing the non-conformity of the site/residence through this variance approval. Bill Jewitt noted that the issue arises from the Town Council's decision to subdivide these lots in this manner. Ann Gunion recommended adjusting the zoning in specific areas of Town to allow existing buildings to become conforming and possibly avoid constant PEC requests. Chas Bernhardt agreed with Ann Gunion's comments and Bill Pierce's recommendation to pave the parking. Doug Cahill also recommended a paved parking surtace. 15 minutes 6. A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for text amendments to Article 12-7A, Public Accommodations District, Vail Town Code, to allow for banks and financial institutions as a conditional use within the Public Accommodations District, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0047) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Rachel Friede ACTION: Tabled to July 24, 2006 • MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Jewitt VOTE:7-0-0 7. Approval of June 26, 2006 minutes MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Jewitt VOTE: 6-0-1 (Gunion abstained) 8. Information Update • As of July 24, 2006, Public Meetings will begin at 1:00. Lunch will not be served. 9. Adjournment MOTION: Cleveland SECOND: Jewitt VOTE: 7-0-0 The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24-hour notification. Please call (970) 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published July 7, 2006, in the Vail Daily. • Page 5 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 10, 2006 SUBJECT: A request for a worksession to discuss proposed amendments to Chapters 12-21, Hazard Regulations, 14-7, Geologic/Environmental Hazards, and 14-10, Design Review Standards and Guidelines, Vail Town Code, to adopt Wildfire Regulations and a Wildfire Hazard Map that will require mitigation of high and extreme wildfire hazard zones in the Town of Vail, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06- 0029) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Rachel Friede SUMMARY The applicant, the Town of Vail, is requesting a worksession to discuss proposed amendments to Chapters 12-21, Hazard Regulations, 14-7, Geologic/Environmental • Hazards, and 14-10, Design Review Standards and Guidelines, Vail Town Code, to adopt Wildfire Regulations and a Wildfire Hazard Map that will require mitigation of high and extreme wildfire hazard zones in the Town of Vail. Town Staff has requested this worksession in order to observe a wildfire hazard assessment at two properties within the Town of Vail. Since this is a worksession, Staff recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission actively participate in the wildfire assessments during the site visit, listen to the presentations made by Staff and ask any pertinent questions. At the July 24, 2006 PEC meeting, Staff will present the final version of text amendments and ~ will ask that the Planning and Environmental Commission forward a recommendation to the Town Council. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The danger of wildfire in Vail has been a pressing issue for many years. There are the intertwined issues of pine beetle infestation, drought, and an increase in development adjacent to Forest Service properties. The Town has worked with partners including the Forest Service and Eagle County to mitigate wildfire risk at the perimeter of the Town by conducting controlled burns. This perimeter would potentially stop fire from traveling from the forest to homes as well as the greater risk from homes to the forest. However, this action is not enough to reduce the risk of wildfire having devastating effects on the Town. In order to protect citizens and their property, it is necessary to mitigate hazards • on private property, not only on public land bordering Forest Service property. The need for Wildfire Regulations has been realized in communities throughout the country, and now the Town has realized that we must legislate mitigation. Over the past year, Town Departments including Fire, Planning, Building, and Environment Health have been collaborating on the development of Wildfire Regulations in order to reduce the risk of destruction of property and spreading wildfires. The purpose of this worksession is to observe wildfire hazard assessments at two properties. These two sites are 2840 Basingdale Blvd and 1807 Alpine Drive. Both property owners contacted the Fire Department for pine beetle assessments and are willing to let us utilize their properties as examples for this exercise. See the attachments for maps of the properties as well as completed NFPA 1144 forms. The NFPA 1144 forms are used to asses the wildfire hazard of a site and through the proposed Wildfire Regulations, a version of this form would be used to assess sites in the Town. The proposed Wildfire Regulations will: • Add a wildfire hazard Section to the Town's existing Hazard Regulations • Adopt a Wildfire Hazard Map as part of the Town of Vail Master Hazard Map • Outline the triggers for complying with the regulations • Require asite-specific investigation of properties in the high and extreme wildfire hazard zones conducted by the Town's Wildfire Mitigation Specialist utilizing the NFPA 1144 form (See Attachment C) • Require a mitigation plan for properties receiving asite-specific wildfire hazard rating of high or extreme that will reduce the wildfire hazard rating to moderate risk or less • Require Class A noncombustible roofing materials in the high and extreme wildfire hazard zones • Modify the Development Standards Handbook to remove any language showing preference to materials that are not FireWise Since this is a worksession, Staff recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission actively participate in the wildfire assessments during the site visit, listen to the presentations made by Staff and ask any pertinent questions. Questions that Staff has for the PEC include: • Does the PEC feel that they have enough background material on fire science and related materials to make an informed decision on the Wildfire Regulations? If not, what additional information would be helpful? • Did you understand the wildfire investigation process as reviewed during the site visit? • Are there any changes you would like made to the proposed regulations? •_ Currently, the proposed regulations include allowing a one time residential addition of 500 square feet or less before an applicant must comply with the new requirements in the wildfire regulations. Does the PEC agree with this provision, or do they feel that this should be deleted to get more applicants into compliance? Staff does not request any action from the Planning and Environmental Commission at • this time. Staff will return at the next PEC meeting for a final recommendation for the proposed text amendments. • III. BACKGROUND In 2004, Eagle County hired Dynamac Corporation to conduct the Eagle County Wildland Fire Hazard Assessment and Mapping. The result was the Eagle County Wildfire Regulations. Since then, the Town has teamed with the County to create our own Wildfire Regulations. The Town has also teamed with the Forest Service on wildfire mitigation projects as part of the Vail Valley Forest Health Initiative. This includes numerous controlled burns throughout the Town in order to mitigate wildfire hazard on the municipality level. The controlled burns create a buffer between the Forest Service properties and Town land. These controlled burns have occurred at Booth Creek, the Upper Bench of Donovan Park and at The Falls Condominiums. The Fire Department also leads a public information campaign and offers free wildfire hazard evaluations for any property in Town. However, these projects alone cannot stop the serious threat of wildfires. Since last year, the Town of Vail Fire, Planning, Building, Public Works and the Environment Health Departments have been collaborating on the development of Wildfire Regulations. Staff has been working on these regulations as one part of the solution to potential wildfires. Staff feels the public will benefit from these proposed regulations, as the regulations will increase awareness of wildfire hazards and provide methods to mitigate these hazards. Staff has had worksessions with the Planning and Environmental Commission on this • subject on May 8, 2006 and June 12, 2006. These worksessions served to educate the Planning and Environmental Commission on fire science, wildfire hazards and the proposed regulations. Staff also held two similar worksessions with the Design Review Board on June 21, 2006 and July 5, 2006. IV. ROLES OF REVIEWING BODIES Order of Review: The Planning and Environmental Commission review text amendment applications and forwards a recommendation to the Town Council. The Town Council will then review the text amendment application. Planning and Environmental Commission: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for the review of a text amendment application, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, and forwarding of a recommendation to the Vail Town Council. Design Review Board: The Design Review Board has no review authority over a text amendment to the Vail Town Code. However, since the Wildfire Regulations may affect the way the Design Review Board reviews applications, Town Staff. will make a presentation to the Design Review Board to keep them informed of potential changes. Town Council: • The Vail Town Council is responsible for final approval, approval with modifications, or denial of a text amendment application, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code. The Vail Town Council has the authority to hear and decide appeals from any decision, determination, or interpretation by the Planning and Environmental Commission and/or Design Review Board. The Vail Town Council may also call up a • decision of the Planning and Environmental Commission and/or Design Review Board. Staff: The Town Staff facilitates the application review process. Staff reviews the submitted application materials for completeness and general compliance with the appropriate requirements of the Town Code. Staff also provides the Planning and Environmental Commission with a memorandum containing a description and background of the application; an evaluation of the application concerning the criteria and findings outlined by the Vail Town Code; and a recommendation of approval, approval with modifications, or denial. V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Town of Vail Zonina Reaulations (Title 12. Vail Town Code1 Chapter 12-1: Title, Purpose and Applicability 12-1-2.' Purpose A. General: These regulations are enacted for the purpose of promoting fhe health, safety, morals, and general welfare of fhe Town, and to promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that will conserve and enhance its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of high quality. 12-3: Administration and Enforcement • 12-3-7: AMENDMENT.' C. Criteria And Findings: 2. Prescribed Regulations Amendment: a. Factors, Enumerated: Before acting on an application for an amendment to the regulations prescribed in this Title, the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested text amendment: (1) The extent to which the text amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the zoning regulations; and (2) The extent to which the text amendment would better implement and better achieve the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town; and (3) The extent to which the text amendment demonstrates how conditions have substantially changed since the adoption of the subject regulation and how the existing regulation is no longer appropriate or is inapplicable; and (4) The extent to which the text amendment provides a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal development objectives; and (5) Such other factors and criteria the Commission andlor Council deem applicable to the proposed text amendment. Town of Vail Development Standards Handbook (Title 14. Vail Town Code Chapter 14-1: Administration . 14-1-1: Purpose and Intent: It is the purpose of these rules, regulations, and standards to ensure the general standards are intended to ensure safe and efficient development within the town • for pedestrians, vehicular traffic, emergency response traffic, and the community at large. The development standards will help protect properly values, ensure the aesthetic quality of the community and ensure adequate development of property within the Town. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission actively participates in the wildfire assessments during the site visit, listen to the presentations made by Staff and ask any pertinent questions. VII. ATTACHMENTS A. 15` Site Visit Map: 2840 Basingdale Blvd. B. 1St Site Visit NFPA 1144 Form: 2840 Basingdale Blvd. C. 2"d Site Visit Map: 1807 Alpine Drive D. 2"d Site Visit NFPA 1144 Form: 1807 Alpine Drive • • Attachment A • • NFPA 1144 Wildland Fire Risk and Hazard Severity Form* Parcel ID: Address: 2840 Basingdale Blvd Lat: Long: Date: 07/05/2006 Comments Total: 60 points: High hazard According to Wildfire Hazard Map, property is partially in the moderate and partially in the high hazard zones. 1. Ingress and Egress a. Two or more roads in/out 0 ~b. One road in/out 7 7 2.Road Width a. >_24 ft 0 0 b. >_20 ft and < 24 ft 2 c. < 20 ft 4 3.. All-Season Road Condition a. Surfaced road, grade < 5% 0 b. Surfaced road, grade > 5% 2 2 c. Non-surfaced road, grade < 5% 2 d. Non-surfaced road, grade > 5% 5 e. Other then all-season 7 4. Fire Service Access a. <_300 ft with turnaround 0 0 b. > 300 ft with turnaround 2 c. < 300 ft with no turnaround 4 d. >_300 ft with no turnaround 5 5. Street Signs a. Present (4" in size and reflectorized) 0 0 b. Not present 5 1. Vegetation Characteristics within 300 ft a. Light (Fuel Models 1 & 2) 5 b. Medium (Fuel Models 4, 6, 8 & 28) 10 10 c. Heavy (Fuel Model 10) 20 ~d. Slash 25 2. Defensible Space a. More than 100 ft of vegetation treatment from structure(s) 1 Ib. 71 to 100 ft of vegetation treatment from structure(s) 3 c. 30 to 70 ft of vegetation treatment from structure(s) ~ 10 10 d. Less than 30 ft of vegetation treatment from structure(s) 1 25 1. Slope <_9% 1 2. Slope 10% to 20% 4 3. Slope 21 % to 30% 7 • 4. Slope 31 % to 40% 8 5. Slope >_41 % 10 10 Place a number from 0-5 in the appropriate yellow box 1. Topographical features that adversely affect wildland fire behavior 0- 0 ~ 2. Separation of adjacent structure that can contribute to fires read 0- 0 ~ 1. Construction Material a. Class A roof 0 0 ~ ~ b. Class B roof 3 ~ ~c. Class C roof 15 ~ d. Not rated 25 ~ 1. Predominate Materials a. Non-combustive/fire resistive siding, eaves, & deck 0 ~ Ib. Non-combustive/fire resistive siding, eaves, & combustive deck 5 ~ ~ ~c. Combustive siding & deck 10 10 ~ ~a. ?30 ft to slope ~ 1 ~ b. < 30 ft to sloe 5 5 ~ 1. Water Source Availability a. Pressurized water source ~ 500 gpm, hydrants x1,000 ft apart 0 0 ~ ~ 250 gpm, hydrants _<1,000 ft apart 1 ~ fib. Nonpressurized water source ~ 500 gpm, continuous for 2 hours 3 ~ ~ 250 gpm, continuous for 2 hours 5 ~ c. Water unavailable 10 ~ 2.Organized Reporise Resource s .:' a. Station <_5 miles from structure 1 ~ b. Station > 5 miles from structure 3 3 ~ 1. Both underground 0 ~ 2. One underground, one aboveground 3 3 ~ 3. Both above round 5 ~ 1. Low hazard, < 25 points _ 0 2. Moderate hazard, 25 to 54 points 3. High hazard, 55 to 97 points 4. Extreme hazard. > 97 points m 8~ ~ ~ C7 Q g c ~~ C O ~' V ~ ~ F- ~ N ~c ~. 7 N O ' ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~a x ~ '~ ~ N ~ ~ ~a ~~ 3~ ^~ ~Q ~` N a ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ .~ ,,,~ ~~~ a ©oa c a~ U N Q Attachment C NFPA 1144 Wildland Fire Risk and Hazard Severity Form* ~I Parcel ID: NCommentsJ Address: 1807 Alpine Drive Total: 53 points: Moderate hazard According to Wildfire Hazard Map, property is completely in high hazard area. J Lat: JLong: I Date: 07/05/2006 1. Ingress and Egress a. Two or more roads in/out I 0 b. One road in/out 7 7 2.Road Width a. >_24 ft 0 0 J b. >_20 ft and < 24 ft 2 c. < 20 ft 4 ~ 3. All-Season Road Condition ~ a. Surfaced road, grade < 5% 0 J b. Surfaced road, grade > 5% 2 2 J c. Non-surfaced road, grade < 5% 2 J d. Non-surfaced road, grade > 5% 5 J e. Other then all-season 7 4. Fire Service Access a. <_300 ft with turnaround 0 0 • b. > 300 ft with turnaround 2 c. < 300 ft with no turnaround 4 d. >_300 ft with no turnaround 5 5. Street Signs a. Present (4" in size and reflectorized) ! 0 0 ' I b. Not present 15 1. Vegetation Characteristics within 3 00 ft a. Light (Fuel Models 1 & 2) 5 b. Medium (Fuel Models 4, 6, 8 & 28) 10 10 c. Heavy (Fuel Model 10) 20 d. Slash 25 2. Defensible Space a. More than 100 ft of vegetation treatment from structure(s) 1 b. 71 to 100 ft of vegetation treatment from structure(s) 3 c. 30 to 70 ft of vegetation treatment from structure(s) ~ 10 10 d. Less than 30 ft of vegetation treatment from structure(s) J 25 1. Slope <_9% 11 2. Slope 10% to 20% ~ 4 • 3. Slope 21 % to 30% 7 4. Slope 31 % to 40% ~ 8 5. Slope >_41 % 10 10 Place a number from 0-5 in the appropriate yellow box I1. Topographical features that adversely J affect wildland fire behavior 0- 0 ~ 2. Separation of adjacent structure that can contribute to fires read 0- 0 ~ 1. Construction Material a. Class A roof 0 I 0 ~ Jb. Class B roof 3 ~ Jc. Class C roof 15 ~ d. Not rated 25 ~ 1. Predominate Materials . a. Non-combustive/fire resistive siding, J eaves, & deck 0 ~ b. Non-combustive/fire resistive siding, eaves, & combustive deck 5 5 ~ c. Combustive siding & deck 10 ~ a. >_30 ft to slope 1 ~ b. < 30 ft to slope 5 5 ~ 1. Water Source Availability a. Pressurized water source J 500 gpm, hydrants <_1,000 ft apart 0 0 ~ 250 gpm, hydrants 51,000 ft apart 1 ~ b. Nonpressurized water source 500 gpm, continuous for 2 hours 13 ~ 5 ~ 250 gpm, continuous for 2 hours ~ c. Water unavailable 10 ~ 2.Organized Reponse Resources a. Station <_5 miles from structure 1 1 ~ b. Station > 5 miles from structure 3 ~ 1. Both underground 0 ~ 2. One underground, one aboveground 3 3 ~ 3. Both above round 5 ~ 1. Low hazard, < 25 points _ 0 2. Moderate hazard, 25 to 54 points 3. High hazard, 55 to 97 points 14. Extreme hazard, > 97 points -« __ ,~ lii ~~ 4~ ~ a s .g a ~m ° ~~ ~~ ~ ~ , ~ N ~ ~ ~ C ~ ~ O oQ~ C v (7 i ~ y ~l d f0 Q ~~ wS, me ~~ v ~, 1 ~~ ~~ C .~ U f~ Q W ^ L ^ a' 0 a 5 a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ s ~~ '~® a_ .9 N a r=~;` • • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 10, 2006 SUBJECT: A request for a final review of a variance, from Section 12-6D-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12 17, Variances, to allow for a new single family residence within the front and side setbacks, located at 1740 Sierra Trail/Lot 22, Vail Village West Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0015) Applicant: Luis Solis, represented by Michael Suman Architect Planner: Matt Gennett I. SUMMARY The applicant is requesting variances from the twenty foot (20') minimum front setback standard and from the fifteen foot (15') minimum front setback standard of the Two-Family Primary/Secondary (P/S) zone district in order to construct a new single family residence in the front and side setbacks of Lvt 22, Vail Village West Filing 1/ 1740 Sierra Trail. A Vicinity Map is attached for reference (Attachment A). Based upon the criteria and findings in Section VIII of this memorandum, staff is recommending denial of the applicant's variance request. • II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant is making a request to build a new single family home at on Lot 22, Vail Village West Filing 1, which would encroach into the front and side setbacks on the uphill, southern portion of the lot, as depicted on the reduced site plan (Attachment B). The proposal entails locating 300.6 square feet of Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) in the front and side setbacks, 293 square feet of GRFA in the eastern side setback of fifteen feet (15') and 7.6 square feet in the front setback of twenty feet (20') from Alpine Drive, in addition to locating approximately 300 square feet of garage area in the front setback from Alpine Drive. The applicant is likewise proposing to gain access to the lot off of Alpine Drive, the portion of which is situated in unincorporated Eagle County, and is basing the rationale for the request upon the existence of a foundation constructed into and on the site in 1979. The applicant's representative and engineer are stating the existing foundation serves as a retention device for the upper portion of the site and its removal would result in an acute destabilization of the lot. The Town Engineer and planning staff believe it may be more practical for the applicant to construct a new foundation for a home which encroaches into the setbacks due to the location of the existing foundation, however, the removal of the existing foundation is an economic hardship imposed by the previous owner of the subject property. The existing foundation system built by the previous owners can be removed and 1 TOWN OF PAIL ~' replaced with a more appropriate foundation system designed for this site and which complies with all the zoning standards, including minimum setbacks. Staff addresses these potential construction alternatives and other issues in Section VIII of this memorandum. A copy of the applicant's representative's written request is attached for reference (Attachment C). Also attached for reference are two letters from the applicant's civil engineers, Boundaries Unlimited INC. (Attachment D), and a packet of photographs with accompanying descriptions for each (Attachment E). IV. BACKGROUND In 1979, a building permit was issued for a residence to be constructed on the subject property. On March 8 1982, the slope existing of Lot 22 failed due to "the cumulative effects of increased groundwater and excessive side grading cuts during the construction period", according to a study prepared by Claycomb Engineering Associates in July 1982. The Town of Vail subsequently undertook the proper remediation and stabilization measures for the slide area in accordance with the study prepared by Claycomb, which included burying the remaining foundation. A report prepared by Church and Associates (Geologic Engineering), Inc., on July 16, 2003, states: "construction is feasible on the lot." REVIEWING BOARD ROLES VARIANCES: A. The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for evaluating a proposal for: The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this Title without grant of special privilege. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. B. The DRB has NO review authority on a variance, but must review any accompanying DRB application. C. Town Council • 2 • Actions of Design Review Board or Planning and Environmental Commission maybe appealed to the Town Council or by the Town Council. Town Council evaluates whether or not the Planning and Environmental Commission or Design Review Board erred with approvals or denials and can uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the board's decision. D. Staff The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided and plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines. Staff provides a staff memorandum containing background on the property and prv~idesa staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS TITLE 12, ZONING REGULATIONS: 12-68-6: SETBACKS: In the SFR district, the rrinimum front setback shall be twenty feet (20'), the minimum side setback shall be fifteen feet (15'), and the minimum rear setback shall be fifteen feet (15'). CHAPTER 17, VARIANCES (in part) • 12-17-1: PURPOSE: A. Reasons For Seeking Variance: In order to prevent or to lessen such practical difficulties and unnecessary physical hardships inconsistent with the objectives of this title as would result from strict or literal interpretation and enforcement, variances from certain regulations maybe granted. A practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship may result from the size, shape, or dimensions of a site or the location of existing structures thereon; from topographic or physical conditions on the site or in the immediate vicinity; or from other physical limitations, street locations or conditions in the immediate vicinity. Cost or inconvenience to the applicant of strict or literal compliance with a regulation shall not be a reason for granting a variance. 8. Development Standards Excepted: Variances maybe granted only with respect to the development standards prescribed for each district, including lot area and site dimensions, setbacks, distances between buildings, height, density control, building bulk control, site coverage, usable open space, landscaping and site development, and parking and loading requirements; or with respect to the provisions of chapter 11 of this title, governing physical development on a site. C. Use Regulations Not Affected: The power to grant variances does not extend to the use regulations prescribed for each district because the flexibility necessary to avoid results inconsistent with the objectives of this title is provided by chapter 16, "Conditional Use Permits'; and by section 12-3-7. "Amendment" of this title. - • 12-17-6: CRITERIA AND FINDINGS: 3 A. Factors Enumerated: Before acting on a variance application, the planning and • environmental commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested variance: 7. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. VI. SITE ANALYSIS Zone District: Two-Family Primary/Secondary Residential Address: 1740 Sierra Trail Legal Description: Lot 22, Vail Village West Filing 1 Lot Size: 11,020.7 square feet / .253 acres Hazards: N/A • Standard Allowed/Required Existinq Proposed Setbacks: Front: 20' N/A 18' Sides: 15' N/A 3.5'/15' Rear: 15' N/A 15'/15' Height: 33' 33' 33' GRFA: 4,988 sq ft 0 sq ft 3,631.5 sq ft Site Coverage: 15% (1,653 sq ft) 0% 15% (1,653 sq ft) Landscape Area: 60% (6,612 sq ft) 100% 85% (9,367 sq ft) Parking: 3 spaces N/A 3 spaces VII. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Land Use Zoninq North: Residential Two-Family Primary/Secondary (P/S) South: Residential Unincorporated Eagle County East: Residential Unincorporated Eagle County West: Residential Two-Family Primary/Secondary (P/S) C: 4 • VIII. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS A. 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Staff has determined the requested variance will not result in a harmonious relationship between the existing structure and the neighboring buildings. The proposed location of the new single family structure, coupled with its proposed access off of Alpine Drive (in unincorporated Eagle County) will render the new home out of characterwith the surrounding neighborhood on Sierra Trail, and within the greater Vail Village West Filing 1 Subdivision. Given the more gradual topography on the northern half of the site, which has average slopes of approximately 30%, and the location of existing homes on Sierra Trail, staff has contemplated the possibility of positioning the garage within the front setback from Sierra Trail, and it is an alternative which could meet the terms of this criterion. With the current proposal, staff does not believe the applicant has met the intent of this criterion. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without a grant of special privilege. Staff is not convinced that a new single family home of a comparable size • and design could not be located elsewhere on this lot, and within the minimum setbacks. The applicant has not demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer and planning staff, the existing foundation is an absolute deterrent from building in its present physical location, nor has it been proven the existing foundation cannot be safely removed and replaced with another structure, given modern engineering methods of slope stabilization. Staff does not disagree with the contention that the lot does have a history of slope stability concerns, however, there are no soils tests or geologic engineering studies to suggest a home could not be safely built down on the flatter portions of the site, with or without the existing foundation structure remaining in place, and accessing the new home off of Sierra Trail. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Staff believes the effects upon light, air, and other public interests could be negative in association with this proposal. The applicant is proposing to access the lot off of Alpine Drive on the south side, which is in unincorporated Eagle County and would therefore require the County's permission. Also, given the purpose and intent of setbacks in the context of those for the zoning regulations in general, the effect upon light, air, and distribution of population may prove to be negative as well. • 5 4. Such otherfactors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to • the proposed variance. It should be noted the average slope beneath the proposed building location is well in excess of 30%. Since the applicant is proposing to gain access off of Alpine Drive instead of the prescribed Sierra Trail, the proposed garage structure is located within the twentyfoot (20') minimum setback from Alpine Drive, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-21-14. B. The Piannina and Environmental Commission shall make the followina findinas before arantina a variance: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical • hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same mne. c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends denial of the requested variance from Sections 12-6D-6, Setbacks, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of a new single family residence within the minimum front and side setbacks, located at 1740 Sierra Trail/Lot 22, Vail Village West Filing 1, subject to the criteria outlined in Section VIII of this memorandum. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to deny the requested variances; the Department of Community Development recommends the Commission pass the following motion: "Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section Vlll of this memorandum, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds: • 6 • 1. That the granting of the variances will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variances will be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variances are not warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would not result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are not exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would not deprive the applicantofprivileges enjoyed by the owners ofotherproperties in the same district. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the requested variances; the Department of Community Development recommends the Commission'pass the following motion: • "Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section Vlll of this memorandum, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds: 1. That the granting of the variances does not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variances will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variances are warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicantofprivileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. • 7 X. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Reduced Site Plan C. Applicant's Request D. Letters from Applicants Engineer E. Photo Packet • r: • 8 z® A L • a' 3 E m H H ~f ~ < <~ ~ N ~$ F ~ dC [~$~ !6 N ~i 5~ 3 O ~ x8d ~~ A ~ Attainment: B 0 z 6~4 ~ II I A~ I ~ ~~a ~~ .~ ~~ o ~ -- --- ------- --------- - -- - --- ~---- --- ------- I -- - r--- SOLIS RESIDENCE suM~N ', LOT 22, YAlL VILLAGE WE8T 18T FlLIN6 VAIL, COLORADO ,_, ,~_,,, o .,~,,,~.i -~ • • Attachment: C SUMAN • A R C H I T E C T March 13, 2006 Lot 22 Vail Village West, l5r Filing Variance Application for Side Setback RE: Section 12-bH-b, Setbacks, Vail Town Code 1. Description of Variance Requested Given the extreme history of this property; the location of existing foundations buried below the ground surface; and existing grades over 60%; the owners of Lot 22 are requesting a setback variance in order to maintain the stability of a sensitive geologic area. The variance being requested will allow approximately 300.6 sq. ft. of GRFA to be constructed within the front and east side setback. Below is a detailed breakdown of the GRFA within each setback: Lot 22 Eastlsidel Setback Southffrontl Setback Proposed GRFA in Setbacks Total 293:0 sq. ft. 7.6 sq. ft. 300.6 sq. ff. This pre-existing condition through no fault of the applicant is a hardship based on the strict and literal interpretation of the code. 2. Background and Analysis of Proposal • In 1979, a building permit was issued for a residence to be constructed on Lot 22. The concrete foundations and a portion of the dwelling were constructed. On March 8, 1982, the slope suddenly failed due to "the cumulative effects of increased ground water and excessive site grading cuts during the construction period" as stated in o drainage study prepared by Claycomb Engineering Associates, Inc. in July 1982. The landslide moved the foundations and carried the framed structure above it down the hill. This failure is extensively documented in the Town of Vail planning and public works files, including photographs. The remediation of the slide area was performed by the Town of Vail under controlled conditions and under the direction of consulting engineers. Based on the Claycomb's recommendations, the remaining foundations were buried; the landslide area was filled with controlled fill; and a subsurface drainage system was installed along the slide plane to intercept any shallow ground water. The stabilization cross-sections are in the Town of Vail file and the site plan is included with this application. A July 16, 2003, report by Church and Associates, Inc.(Engineers and Geologists), states that "construction is feasible on the lot." It also states that "the top of the foundation wall appears to be well below the surface of the lot, and could easily be kept within the slope to supplement the slope stability, thus alleviating the expense of having to remove it".The applicant believes that keeping the foundations in tact is in fact necessary to prevent a repeat in history and to maintain the integrity of this sensitive geological area. As can be seen in the site plan A 1.0, the lot can be accessed from the north via Sierra Trail or from the south via Alpine Drive. There are practical difficulties with both access locations, and some form of variance is required for both scenarios in order to develop a viable dwelling unit on Lot 22. The existing • michael(a~.sumanarchitect.com 143 East Meadow Drive Suite 300 Vail, CO 81657 970.479.7502 f 970.479.7511 m 970.471.6122 SUMAN A R C H I T E C T foundations create the greatest difficulties for the north access scenario and therefore, this proposal accesses the site from the south. Due to the geometry of the site, the steepness of grades and the location of the existing foundations, there is very little flexibility in locating the new residence. In order to satisfy the parking requirements and stay under the height limits, the garage must be located in the front setback as allowed by section 12-21-14 of the code. This forces the livable area of the new residence to be to the north and the east of the garage (i.e. downhill from the garage). A compact, lineal plan is necessary to avoid the foundations and stay within the property and height limits. In addition to compact plans, simple shed roofs that follow the slope of the site are incorporated to address height limits (see site sections on A4.1). The proposed structure is literally squeezed into the building envelope allowed per code. Even so, it is necessary to use the side setback in its development. In recent years, the adjacent Lot 15 was fully developed with a new duplex structure. This structure is located in the center of a lot with two acute angled corners. One of the corners is located directly south of the proposed structure for Lot 22. The hatched area of the site plan designates the required Eagle County setbacks because it is in Eagle County jurisdiction. It is practically impossible to develop a structure of any significance in the acute property corner on Lot 15 because of setback limitations, access and geometry. Therefore, the impacts of the proposed structure on any neighboring properties, is negligible. 3. Approval Criteria aJ The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The proposed setback area encroachments are concentrated in one area of the site with little impact to development standards and neighboring properties and structures. b) The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. The proposed variance will allow Lot 22 to be developed in a compatible fashion with equal treatment in spite of the extreme history and unique site hardships. The proposed variance is not a grant of special privilege given the practical difficulties that are caused by the existing foundations, site geometry, geologic sensitivity and steep grades through no fault of the applicant. The proposed design is the result of a detailed study based on the development code and site conditions that most sensitively marries structure with site. cJ The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The proposed variance will have no negative impacts to these issues- michaelnsumanarchitect.com 143 East Meadow Drive 970.479.7502 Suite 300 f 970.479.7511 Vail, CO 81657 m 970.471.6122 • • • • • suM~N A R C H I T E C T 3/12/2006 RE: Subject: Lot Size: Zoning: Setbacks: Height: Site Coverage Allowed: Site Coverage Proposed: GRFA Allowed: GRFA Proposed: Required: Lot 22, Vail Village West, l5, Filing Zoning Analysis .253 acre = 11,020.7 sq. ft. Primary/Secondary 20' Front 15' Sides 15' Rear 33' Sloped Roofs 30' Flat Roofs 1,653.1 sq. ft. (15% of Lot area) 1,653.0 sq, ft. (15% of tot area) 4,600 sq. ft. (10,000 sq. ft./ 100 x 46) 387.9 sa. ft. f 1,020.7 sa. ft./100x38) 4,987.9 sq. ft. GRFA Allowed 264.1 sq. ft. Upper Level Plan 1,584.6 sq. ft. Living Level Plan 986.7 sq. ft. Master Level Plan 796.1 sa. ft. Lower Level Plan 3,631.5 sq. ft. GRFA Proposed Parking 3 parking spaces required for dwellings between 2,000-4,000 sq. ft. Parking 3 enclosed spaces off-street Provided: Garage Credit (2) Spaces @300 sq. ff. = 600 sq. ft. Allowed: Garage Area 567.1 sq. ft. Proposed: 143 East Meadow Drive Suite 300 Vail, CO 81657 michaelna sumanarchitect.com 970.479.7502 f 970.479.7511 m 970.471.6122 Attachment: D BOUI~IDARI~S -.- _. UNLIMITED INC. i Civil & Consulting Engineers June 18, 2006 Mr. Michael Suman Suman Architect PO Box 7760 Avon. CO 81620 RE: Proposed Solis Residence Building Site Location Recommendation, Lot 22, Vail Village West Filing #1, Vail, CO Dear Michael: The following letter report presents a building site Location recommendation for the Solis residence to be constructed on the above referenced Lot 22. Lot 22's street address is 1740 Sierra Trail, `'ail, Colorado and is located between the Sierra Trail cul-de-sac and Alpine Drive. This recommendation is based on our reviewing of the available documents and drawings, recent site visits, and our knowledge acquired from direct involvement with the site reclamation completed . during 1982-1983. The following documents and drawings made available for our review are identified as follows: Topographic Survey, Lot 22, Vail Village West, Filing No. 1, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado, Job No. 152, Prepared by Eagle Valley Surveying Inc., Dated 1116/06. Topographic Map, Bitteto Lot, Lot 22, Vail Village West, Filing # 1, Town of Vail, Vail, Colorado, Prepared By Claycomb Engineering Associates, Inc., Sheets 1 of 2, Dated 9/21/82 Cross-Sections, Bitteto Lot, Lot 22, Vail Village West, Filing # 1, Town of Vail, Vail, Colorado, Prepared By Claycomb Engineering Associates, Inc., Sheets 2 of 2, Dated 9/21/82 Numerous Field Reports (some not legible) of the Street and Lot reconstruction, Prepared by Bruce D. Lewis, Claycomb Engineering Associates, Inc. Dated from November 1982 thru November 1983 Review of Available Geologic and Geotechnieal Documents, 1740 Sierra Trail, Lot 22, Vail Village West, Filing No. 1, Eagle County, Colorado, Job No. 15591, Addressed to Richard E. Young by Church & Associate, Inc., Engineers & Geologists, 6 pages, Dated July 16, 2003 - Solis Residence, Lot 22, Vail Village West 1st Filing, Vail, Colorado, Prepared by Suman • Architect, Sheets A] .0, A2.1, A3.1, & A4.1, Dated ~:13!U6 823 Blake Avenue Suite 102 Glenwood Springs ,Colorado 81601 Ph: 970.945.5252 Fax: 970.384.2833 June 18, 2006 'vtr. Michael Suman Proposed Solis Residence • Pave 2 of 3 As shown on the above referenced recent Topographic Survey, the ground surface grades across the 0.253 acre north facing Iot ranges from approximately 2~% to 70 %. The elevation difference of approximately 64 feet exists between the Sierra Trail cul-de-sac and Alpine Drive. A sloped 6 foot stacked boulder retaining wall is located at the base of the lot along the Sierra Trail cul-de-sac. A brief history of Lot 22's building excavation and land slide activity began with the construction of a single family residence back in 1979, as detailed in the above referenced Church & Associates, Inc. report. According to the referenced report, during the fall of 1979 extensive excavation exposed a spring and minor slides undermining the Alpine Drive were noted by Eagle County's Engineering Department. Following intermittent construction activities and several site evaluations, the largest and last land slide failure occurred on March 8, 1982 at the southern excavated vertical escarpment. The last slide took out a section of Alpine Drive's pavement and a portion of the Town's water line. The slide mass moved a portion of the partially framed house (on lot 22) off from its foundation. Claycomb Engineering Associates, Inc. (CEA) was contracted by the Town of Vail to complete a design and monitor the site stabilization and reconstruction of the street and lot to the topography grades existing prior to any on site building excavation (shown on the referenced Topographic Map and Cross-Sections drawings). As previously mentioned, I vas directly involved, as a senior • engineer with CEA, with completing the reclamation of the slide area. The scope of work included determining the extent of land slide material removal and the design of the sub-drain system, storm drainage, and street pavement sections. As part of the site reconstruction, the partially completed foundation v~~as left in place and serves as a busied plug or dam. The location of this foundation is shown on the above reference Topographic Map. Two site visits were conducted on May Sa' and 17`t' of this year to observe any visible ground surface conditions and the outflow water from the sites subsurface drain system. The lot's steep sloping ground surface is well vegetated with grass and shov~~ed very little surface runoff erosion: The upper sub-grade material near the ground surface shows some minor settlement and down- slope movement, based on the present condition of the monitor pipe (installed as part of the reconstruction) located near the middle portion of the lot. No mound surface breaks, minor slides, differential settlement or other slope instability indicator were observed on the lot. A small flow of water was observed exiting the storm drain culvert connected to the sites subsurface drain system. The Iack of any significant ground movement or slope failures over the past 23 years indicates the site exists in a stable condition. Disturbance of the existing buried concrete foundation stntcture and the back-filled material at the bottom portion of the lot in the vicinity of the Sierra Trail cul-de-sac shall be avoided in order to maintain stability of the steep slope and subsurface drainage system. The depth of excavation required for removal of the buried foundation structure, with the presence of year round ground water, significantly increases the risk of slope instability and the potential of land slides. As shown on the above referenced plans, the location of the proposed residence with its access coming off from Alpine Dril-e is recommended. A soils ins esti~ation along with a slope analysis June ] 8, 2006 Mr. Michael Suman Proposed Solis Residence Page 3 of 3 shall be performed for the proposed structure. Also, the sub-drain gravel beds and collector pipes must be field located in the proposed building area so that they maybe avoided or redesigned prior to foundation construction. All excavations shall be reviewed by a geotechnical engineer prior to placement of any improvements or fill material. A site grading and drainage plan shall be prepazed by a qualified registered engineer. Ali surface drainage generated by the proposed improvements shall be piped to the bottom of the lot and released at historical runoff rates into the existing storm drain. In summary, the site reconstruction completed in 1983 on lot 22 appears to remain stable. Disturbance of the buried foundation and backfilled material between this foundation and Sierra trail shall be avoided. The proposed building location, with proper precautions, can avoid disturbance in the immediate area of the.existing buried foundation structure. A soils investigation along with a slope analysis for the proposed structure shall be completed prior to any site excavation. All improvements shall be in accordance with the soils investigation recommendations. All excavation and encountered sub-drain systems, surface and subsurface drainage design must be reviewed and modification designs completed by a qualified engineer. Please feel free to contact me for additional information or questions you may have. Sincerely, BOtJI~FDARIE~, ~~ ._.- ~ Bruce D. Lewis~..`~;•~~ v ~~~~ pf~ Principal '`~ ~~°~ (y'1~~ °°° y.. G n°o,. „o°..°~ ... "~ ~' • • I~~ u BOUNDAF~II~S ~.~.... UI~iLIMITED II~IC. Civil & Consulting Engineers July 3, 2006 Mr. Michael Suman Suman Architect PO Box 7760 Avon, CO 81620 RE: Variance Request for Proposed Solis Residence Building Site Location Recommendation, Lot 22, Vail Village West Filing #1, Vail, CO Dear Michael: This letter further discusses our Building Site Location Recommendation letter for the Proposed Solis Residence, dated June 18, 2006. It our my understanding, during a phone conversation with Tom Kassmel, Town Engineer, that a variance request has been submitted to the Town of Vail for constructing a portion of the Solis Residence outside the lots building setbacks. • I stated in our June 18, 20061etter, "Disturbance of the existing buried concrete foundation structure and the back-filled material at the bottom portion of the lot in the vicinity of the Sierra Trail cul-de-sac shall be avoided in order to maintain stability of the steep slope and subsurface drainage system. The depth of excavation required for removal of the buried foundation structure, with the presence of year round ground water, significantly increases the risk of slope instability and the potential of land slides." During the site reconstruction (1982-983), I determined that the concrete foundation was constructed at least 3 feet below the slip plane of the slide area. At that time, I felt that leaving the foundation in place was critical component of the lot stabilization process for the following three reasons. 1. The foundation removal would have required deeper excavation at the bottom of the land slide area. Deeper excavation would create a more hazardous environment to the construction workers by increasing the risk of additional slides. 2. Leaving the foundation in place created a rigid dam like structure. This is an integral part of the field design for maintaining the steeply sloped backfill in place. 3. The foundation's uphill facing large surface wall areas are part of the subsurface drainage system designed to intercept the underground spring and higher seasonal ground water conditions. The uphill faced walls of the foundation are lined with a prefabricated drainage composite mat ("MiraDrain" system) in order to remove excess water from the soils. Keeping soil dry is critical in maintaining stable ground in steep sloping areas. • 823 Blake Avenue Suite 102 'Glenwood Springs 'Colorado 81601 Ph: 970.945.5252 ~ Fax: 970.384.2833 July 3, 2006 Mr. Michael Suman Variance Request for Proposed Solis Residence Page2of2 Again, we believe that a residence can be built on this lot as long as construction in the area of the buried foundation is avoided. Disturbing or removing the buried foundation should be avoided since it is an integral part of maintaining slope stabilization. Also, just as critical, is that any new construction upslope of the buried foundation must be designed not to add additional loads (or surcharge) to the backfilled material of the upper landslide zone. All recommendations stated in the referenced June 18, 2006 letter shall remain unchanged. Please feel free to contact me for additional information or questions you may have. Sincerely, // ~`'r~ ~~ Bruce D. Le PE Principal INC. • • r~ U Attachment: E A,RC NIT~CT' June 30, 2CtOb Lot 22 Vail Village West, t i' Filing Variance Applicativn far Side Setback RE: Section 12-bH-b, Setbacks, Vail Tawr~ Code The attached photos 1-4 were taken shortly after the land slide on March 8. 1482. These images care copies of the photos on file at the Town of Vail Planning Department. They illustrate not only the severity of the land slide that took place. but the devastation that occurred as a result. The access drive previously came from the Sierra Trail side downhill side} of the properly. As dacurnented extensively in the TC7V file and in documents associated with this variance request, the deep cut created far tt~e access drive and the foundation installation was instrumental in causing the slope to fail. Photo 1 This photo shaves the deep cut started frorr~ Sierra Trail to the structure. Note much of it is filled with slide debris. Photo 2 This photo shows a close view of the collapsed structure. The concrete faur~dations are buried below the damc~aged framing and as located ira the remediativn site plan, remained relatively in tact and where constructed. Photo 3 This photo captures the slide from the west side. Photo 4 This phoiv captures tt~e slide from the Alpine Drive side of the property(uphill}, Nate the larad slide material settled against tt~~e uphill side of the foundations belvw. Please refer to the letter prepared on June l8, 200b by Boundaries Unlimited, Inc. for a review of the present state of the property. Photo 5 This phoiv shows the current state of tt~e slope tram the north side of the prvperty off of Sierra Trail. Note the boulder retaining wall in the foreground and the amount of fill that was place vn top of the foundation in the center of the site. A monitoring hate can be seen in the center of the phvto. This is connected to the drainage system installed as a part of the slope remediation after the slide. Photo b This phoiv shows the current state of the slope irvm the north side of the property atf of Sierra Trail. Note the distance the prvpased buildintT ivcation is from the structure on the adjacent Lot 15 tv the east. Photo 7 This photo shvves the current state of the slope from the south side of the prvperty off of Alpine Drive. The monitvring hole can again be seen in the center of the slope. Photo $ This photo shawl the current state of the slope tram the south side of the property vff of Alpine Drive, Note the drainage Swale between the adjacent Laf 15 structure card the propvsed buildir7g location. It will remain in tact with this proposal. rT,31}'li tcttt,tiCf .~ .°~.! fit.. ~ ;_<<~,~ 1~3 E a~;t 4leact<~G~ CJrr~e <t7C1.479.750' 5uitr 3t?O 1 `>?t1.$79, r ~ 1 1 VaiI.C"(aKll~i7 nr 97().~'1.612~ ~~~~ ,ARCt1rT~CY The basis for the Lot 22 variance request is to protect against re-creating similar conditions to that which caused the original land slide, In order fa remove the existing foundations, excavation has to go even deeper than the slide excavation to rerr-ave the original foundation with its footings. This exacerbates the issues that were involved in the original land slide. As outlined in the letter by Boundaries Unlimited, Inc., the existing foundations buried in the site should be avoided. The proposed building location stays clear of disturbing the stabilized lower section of the slope. It is anticipated that pier foundations will be used in the new building construction in order to minimize slope disturbance and a civil engineer will be involved to design proper drainage around the structure and throughout the site. The building was also located as far to the west ar7 the property as possible. This takes advantage of lower grade elevations in an effort to minimize site disturbance. It also maximizes the distance between the s#ructure on t.ot t S and the proposed home. C Q.~,' 3 ?St)~ ~1r4:3 t -st'~1~ad<+~4 [)rite -'rrr Suiir; 3tTIJ / ~)?t1.479.75 ( t 1~'dil. C"t~ isl(~Si n~ y?(}.d7L61'? r~-~y 6.79.46 • LC)T Z2, '1/Al V~LIACE 1NE$1', AILING ~ MARCH S, 1982 LANDSLIDE FAILURE PH4TQS view from sierra trail looking up hill • ~~' ~~. ~~>a ~ ~. ~a :~° .~ ~ ~ ~,~ ~ ~ ~.: . -~ '~ .: . ~ . .~ t= ~~~. ,~ ,,,,M a. 'f~~,y~ r . r^f 'rs '.. pyc.tr C .y~;r~ y . ~ ~'~ .».,, ~ , jy,r ..p. ~ wl.. r ~-.. ,.R ~~ ~~ ~ ~~~; mom. ~! ?"_, f~F t I~ta^'y, 0.29.06 LOT 22, VAiI VILLAGE WEST, FILING 1 MARCH 8, 1982 LANDSLIDE FAILURE PH©TOS close-up view of sfructure 2 +~~~`; ~~ A ~.r ,e_ r ,~ ~. .. a. ~~~~ ~ Aux ~ 'fir. '` ~.,° ~' - .~:,_,,~. ~ n ~;r ~ ~" ;~.,,.,. r HUMAN ~ ~... ~. _ ... ,.~«u° 6.29.Ob LC)T 22, VAI! VILLAGE WEST, FILING 1 MARCH 8, 1982 LANDSLfDE FAILURE PHOTOS view from sierra trail looking east 3 $s ~_ a HUMAN • ~ T ~a . ~~ >> x.29.06 tQT 22, VAII VIttAGE WEST, FILING 1 MAROH 8, 1482 LANDSLIDE FAILURE PHOTOS view from alpine drive looking down hill 4 A~~,~ ~~.~~ ~~° ~~ ~ ~ ~~ .:~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~~ ~~ k. ~~~e~ 5U AN • • nd ~V ~'g~~ 4 ~i ., i 1~`, ip"~ p w i~~~~I ~~'~ y i 4~ ~'~d°W4 ~J, ".' p~p ... ~Y r E ~p ~ 9 ~§~ ~,~wr5~„~4~a 4 ~'~ f ~ ~ ~~' s~ ~ 9t °4'`:,,~',, k "" A °W4 dd P ~I I x '%s/1!k ~+a { ~g`f ~ fi Y Ur d C '" ~ 'NY ~"~ ~ 6 t.; a "°~ ~ y~ ~ ~Nr ° V ~ Iii ~"~~ .~ ~ ~~" " ~ +h ~' w " ~~ ~ ~ ~. t1~ *~ r a ~~ r as : 'w d ~, GC ~ ~ , ~ ~~~ ~ ~s„~~ ` `~° ,~, ~. r . . , _ ~ ~,~, ,. _~- ,, wa~F. ode °.,9:.x ~ ~ „,,.«>.,e#& >. ~,a.. ,m .. a~ ..,~.. ~ ~1~t~lAh1 6.2F.0~ LQT 22, VAII VILLAGE WEST, FILING 1 CURRENT EXISTING SITE PHOTOS view from sierra trail looking up hill S • 6.24.06 LOT 22, VAII VILLAGE WEST, FILING 1 CURRENT EXISTING SITE PHOTOS view from sierra trail looking up hill 6 F ~°a1e w g1. ® ~„ Lu ah~ ta fi Ttl ~ 2 µ ~. 1~' ~ r ~ ~ L ~ ~ ~ py i gyp` .~'~. ~~ ;, 111 ~ ,~' ~a. , ~,. r ^~"~ ~ ~~ @ h ~. ,3 h~a ~ ~ Ark .,~ Ilr~ f ~ i*`~~~ ~~1 ~ ~~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~, ~ b ~ ~ a ^k -. r yy ~~k r ~t " ~ ~ a.~ yes. ` ~ ,an+~.~ ~ e -~ €p~mi yMl[~ ''"~" x gy, ~. ~ {~~U. H 'i mM y ~~4 w ,~ V ~ RH r~ M k ~~ ,. ..=u.i „y=w~ '~` ~y, ,fit a wlbr ~ ' ~ k':p ~ t ~ ~q ,k~ M.rra~... __ Yt~- az!,~ w ~ ~`~1. ~~ '~°' . '~.. ' r...~' n~r~' J~~~"~ '~w~ ~~~. '+~~~. . ~~u' e 1 ~~ '~ if+. w, j ~'~~ "'r~~~ ~ ¢ } :: ~~, fi ~ r .. x,i ru~,~ F.. ~~_. uWY at"~ " 'My°t P k. ~' y~n$~O Y SUM/1N ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ -, ~`". ~. ,, • ,;:,, ~` 6.29.06 LOT 22, VAIL VILLAGE WEST, FILING 1 CURRENT EXISTING SITE PHOTOS view from alpine drive looking down hill ,r 7 P ~ lr ~ 8 u~ N ~ V AM's m _ dry ~ "`~ ~~ n ~ 4 s X` aiBs' ~ x ~ $ ~C~,. «_ ~r a~ ~ i~ ~*:,„. ~ a1~,t~ „' R~ ~ `E~c.,' ~ SUMAN ~.2~.ab !OT 22, VAt! VILLAGE WEST, FIl~~1G 1 • CURRENT EXISTING SITE PHOTOS view from alpine drive looking down hill • .. t~:;'.X n.. • ? } t ' •e E ~ i K. ~'; ~ !' ~;'~ ~Y+~ ~'"' ~: .(,. ~ #~..tv... ~ ~ ~ ~~:'. ...,.. r y ~ ~ f. i ~ ~A R,~n r ~ ~ ..~,:r ,~ . :~+t ~r ~ '.~. .. .,. .. ~ly Y-w • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 10, 2006 SUBJECT: A request for a final review of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13- 12, Exemption Plat, Vail Town Code, to allow for the combination of Lot 1 and Tract A of the Cliffside Subdivision into a single lot, located at 1452 Buffehr Creek Road/ Lot 1 and Tract A, Cliffside Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0042) Applicant: Mike Young Planner: Warren Campbell I. SUMMARY The applicant, Mike Young, is requesting approval of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat, Vail Town Code, to allow for the combination of Lot 1 and Tract "A" of the Cliffside Subdivision into a single lot, located at 1452 . Buffehr Creek Road/ Lot 1 and Tract A, Cliffside Subdivision. The amended final plat, if approved, results in the combination of Lot 1 and Tract "A" of the Cliffside Subdivision into a single lot, Lot 1, Cliffside Subdivision. Staff is recommending approval with a condition of this application subject to the findings and conditions outlined in Section IX of this memorandum. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant, Mike Young, currently has asingle-family home constructed on Lot 1, Cliffside Subdivision and owns Tract A which was a parcel he created to contain a shared access driveway for Lots 1, 2 and 6 of Cliffside Subdivision. A vicinity map is attached depicting the two lots (Attachment A). The applicant has proposed to combine these two parcels with the recording of an amended final plat entitled Second Amended Final Plat of Lot 1, Cliffside Subdivision: A Resubdivision of Lot 1 of Cliffside and Tract "A", Cliffside. A copy of the plat to be recorded is attached for reference (Attachment B). The amended final plat, if approved, would result in Lot 1, Cliffside Subdivision increasing in size from 45,409 square feet to 50,164 square feet, and the elimination of Tract "A". III. BACKGROUND On March 13, 2000, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved a Minor Subdivision for Lot 4, Ridge at Vail Subdivision to allow for the elimination of the platted building envelope and GRFA restrictions. This allowed the applicant to construct the residence which currently exists on Lot 4, Ridge at Vail Subdivision (Now Lot 1, Cliffside Subdivision). Staff provides a staff memo containing background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS TOWN OF VAIL ZONING CODE TITLE 13: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS (in part) 13-2-2 DEFINITIONS EXEMPTION PLAT.• The platting of a portion of land or property that does not fall within the definition of a "subdivision" as contained in this section. . 13-12 EXEMPTION PLAT REVIEW PROCEDURES 13-12-1: PURPOSE AND INTENT: The purpose of this chapter is to establish criteria and an appropriate review process whereby the planning and environmental commission may grant exemptions from the definition of the term "subdivision" for properties that are determined to fall outside • the purpose, purview and intent of chanters 3 and 4 of this title. This process is intended to allow for the platting of property where no additional parcels are created and conformance with applicable provisions of this code has been demonstrated. (Ord. 2(2001) § 1) 13-12-2: EXEMPTIONS IN PROCEDURE AND SUBMITTALS: "Exemption Plats", as defined in section 13-2-2 of this title, shall be exempt from requirements related to preliminary plan procedures and submittals. Exemption plat applicants may be required to submit an environmental impact report if required by title 12, chapter 12 of this code. 13-12-3: PLAT PROCEDURE AND CRITERIA FOR REVIEW: The procedure for an exemption plat review shall be as follows: A. Submission Of Proposal; Waiver Of Requirements: The applicant shall submit two (2) copies of the proposal following the requirements for a final plat in subsection 13- 3-66 of this title, with the provision that certain of these requirements may be waived by the administrator and/or the planning and environmental commission if determined not applicable to the project. B. Public Hearing: The administrator will schedule a public hearing before the planning and environmental commission and follow notification requirements for adjacent property owners and public notice for the hearing as found in subsection • 13-3-661 of this title. Lot 3 Single-Family 10,271 s.f. NA 4,035 s.f. 1 d.u. • Lot 4 Res. Cluster 21,687 s.f. 15,795 s.f. 5,686 s.f. 2 d.u.s Lot 6 Res. Cluster 28,950 s.f. 23,160 s.f. 8,337 s.f. 3 d.u.s VIII. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Exemption Plat (Defers to Section 13-3-4, which is as follows): The following are the requirements of Section 13-3-4, Commission Review of Application; Criteria and Necessary Findings, Vail Town Code, for the review of an Exemption Plat. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall conduct a public hearing on an application for a Preliminary Plan for Subdivision. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall consider the application, relevant additional materials, Staff report and recommendations as well as any other comments or public information given at the hearing. The Planning and Environmental Commission may discuss advisable changes to the proposed subdivision with the applicant. The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of this Chapter, the Zoning Ordinance and other pertinent regulations that the Planning and Environmental Commission deems applicable. Due consideration shall be given to the recommendations made by public agencies, utility companies • and other agencies consulted under subsection 13-3-3C above. A. Before recommending approval, approval with conditions or disapproval of the Preliminary Plan, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall consider the following criteria with respect to the proposed subdivision: (1) The extent to which the proposed subdivision is consistent with all the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town; and Staff has reviewed the individual documents comprising .the Vail Comprehensive Plan and found the, Vail Land Use Plan to be the sole document addressing this parcel/subdivision. The Vail Land Use Plan identifies Lot 1 of the Cliffside Subdivision as being within the Medium Density Residential Land Use Designation which states the following: The medium density residential category includes housing which would typically be designed as attached units with common walls. Densities in this category would range from 3 to 14 dwelling units per buildable acre. Additional types of uses in this category would include private recreation facilities, private parking facilities and institutional/public uses such as parks and open space, churches, • and fire stations. In addition, this proposal would not affect access to any lots within the • subdivision as currently, Lots 1, 2, and 6 gain access to their properties on the private drive contained within Tract "A". Lots 3 and 4 gain access off of Buffehr Creek Road. Access to Lots 2 and 6 will still be maintained by the existing easement which has been in place since the original subdivision creating Cliffside. (4) The extent of the effects on the future development of the surrounding area; and Staff believes that the proposed amended final plat will not have any negative effect on the development of the surrounding area, and therefore complies with this criterion. (5) The extent to which the proposed subdivision is /ocafed and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development; and The proposed amended final plat will have no negative impact on the items identified in the above criterion as the Lot 1 is currently platted and services and facilities are in place. (6) The extent to which the utility lines are sized to serve the planned • ultimate population of the service area to avoid future land disruption to upgrade under-sized lines; and The proposed amended final plat will have no negative impact on the utility lines servicing Lot 1 as the lot is currently platted and adequate utility lines services are in place. (7) The extent to which the proposed subdivision provides for the growth of an orderly viable community and serves fhe best interests of the community as a whole; and The proposed amended final plat does not create a lot which does not already currently exist. Staff believes the application complies with this criterion. (8) The extent to which the proposed subdivision results in adverse or beneficial impacts on the natural environment, including, but not limited to, water quality, air quality, noise, vegetation, riparian corridors, hillsides and other desirable natural features; and The proposed amended final plat, if approved, would not have any negative effect on the items fisted in the above criterion as the lot is currently platted. - • (9) Such other factors and criteria as the Commission and/orCouncil deem applicable to the proposed subdivision. 7 Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this • amended final plat, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings: (1) That the subdivision is in compliance with the criteria listed in Subsection 13-3-4A of this Title. (2) That the subdivision is consistent with the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and compatible wifh the development objectives of the Town; and (3) That the subdivision is compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses appropriate for the surrounding areas; and (4) That the subdivision promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in an manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to deny this amended final plat, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: The Planning and Environmental Commission denies the request for an amended final plat to create the Second Amended Final Plat of Lot 1. Cliffside Subdivision: A Resubdivision of Lot 1 of Cliffside and Tract "A': Clififside, • pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for the combination of Lot 1 and Tract A of the Cliffside Subdivision into a single lot, located at 1452 Buffehr Creek Road/ Lot 1 and Tract A, Cliffside Subdivision and setting forth details in regard thereto. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to deny this amended final plat request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings: (1) That the subdivision is not in compliance with the criteria listed in Subsection 13-3-4A of this Title. (1) That the subdivision is not consistent with the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and compatible with the development objectives of the Town; and (2) That the subdivision is not compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses appropriate for the surrounding areas; and (3) That the subdivision does not promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in an manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. • e • ,~.~~, ~~ ~ THIS ITEM MAPUBL C NOTIOER PROPERTY NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with section 12-3-6, Vail Town Code, on July 10, 2006, at 2:00 pm in the Town of Vail Municipal Building, in consideration of: A request for a final review of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat, Vail Town Code, to allow for the combination of Lot 1 and Tract A of the Cliffside Subdivision into a single lot, located at 1452 Buffehr Creek Road/ Lot 1 and Tract A, Cliffside Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0042) Applicant: Mike Young Planner: Warren Campbell A request for a final review of a variance, from Sections 12-6H-6, Setbacks, and 12-14- 17, Setback from Water Course, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for a new front entry and deck addition within the setbacks, located at 103 Willow Place/Lot 4, Block 6, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0043) Applicant: Edelweiss Condominium Association, represented by Larry Deckard Planner: Bill Gibson • A request for a final review of a variance, from Section 12-6C-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, pursuant to chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for a bedroom addition within the front and side setbacks, located at 4269 Nugget Lane/Lot 3, Bighorn Estates Townhouses, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0044) Applicant: Nugget Lane Partners, LLC, represented by Morter Architects Planner: Elisabeth Reed A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3- 7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for text amendments to Article 12-7A, Public Accommodations District, Vail Town Code, to allow for banks and financial institutions as a conditional use within the Public Accommodations District, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0047) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Rachel Friede The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call 970-479-2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request, with 24-hour not+#ication. Please call 970-479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. • Published June 23, 2006, in the Vail Daily. .~ j~IT Attachment: C • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 10, 2006 SUBJECT: A request for a final review of a variance, from Sections 12-6H-6, Setbacks, and 12-14-17, Setback from Water Course,' Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12- 17, Variances, to allow for a new front entry and deck addition within the setbacks, located at 103 Willow Place/Lot 4, Block 6, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0043) Applicant: Edelweiss Condominium Assoc., represented by Larry Deckard Planner: Bill Gibson SUMMARY The applicant, Edelweiss Condominium Association, represented by Larry Deckard, is requesting a variance, from Sections 12-6H-6, Setbacks, and 12-14-17, Setback from Water Course, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for a new front entry and deck addition within the setbacks, located at 103 Willow Place/Lot 4, Block 6, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Based upon Staff's review of the criteria in Section VIII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends approval, with a condition, of the variance request subject to the findings and condition noted in Section IX of this memorandum. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The Edelweiss Condominium is located within the High Density Multiple-Family (HDMF) District and is currently legally non-conforming in regard to several of the HDMF development standards such as setbacks. The applicant is requesting approval of a front setback variance to allow for the renovation of the front entry located on the south elevation of the building. The applicant is also requesting a rear setback variance and Gore Creek stream setback to allow for the construction of a new deck and two new French balconies at the rear (i.e. north elevation) of the building. The front entry renovation will include the enclosure of an existing open-air vestibule, which complies with the 20-foot front setback requirement. This proposed vestibule enclosure is defined as a "common element"; and therefore, does not affect the gross residential floor area (GRFA) or parking requirements for the Edelweiss. While the vestibule enclosure complies with the setback requirements, the proposed entry feature and entry roof both encroach within the front setback. The proposed entry feature will include three steps and entry doors; however, the entry feature has been design with • open sides and open front windows to minimize its perceived bulk and mass. The proposed entry roof has the same surface area as the existing legally non-conforming entry roof and encroaches no further into the front setback than the existing legally non- • conforming entry roof. The rear (i.e. north elevation) of the existing legally non-conforming Edelweiss building is currently located within the 20' rear setback and within the 50' Gore Creek stream setback. Due to the location of the existing building, the above-grade deck and two above-grade French balconies proposed by the applicant do not comply with setback requirements. The proposed .deck and balconies have been designed to be match the existing decks located at the rear of the Edelweiss. The proposed above-grade deck and balconies will have no impact to wetlands, stream banks, etc. Related to these setback variance requests, the applicant is proposing significant changes to the exterior building materials, colors, and details which will be reviewed further by the Design Review Board at its July 19, 2006, public hearing. A vicinity map (Attachment A), the applicant's request (Attachment B), photographs Attachment C), and the proposed architectural plans have all been attached for reference (Attachment D). III. BACKGROUND The Edelweiss development site was originally platted in 1962 as part of the Vail Village Filing 1. The development site was included in the original Town of Vail established in 1968. The existing Edeweiss building was originally constructed in 1970, prior to the 1972 adoption of zoning regulations by the Town of Vail. The Edelweiss is currently non- conforming in regard to several provisions of the Town of Vail zoning regulations. The design review application associated with this proposal was conceptually reviewed by the Town of Vail Design Review Board at its June 21, 2006, public hearing. The Board responded very favorably to the applicant's proposal. IV. ROLES OF REVIEWING BODIES Order of Review: Generally, variance applications will be reviewed by the Planning and Environmental Commission, and then any accompanying design review application will be reviewed by the Design Review Board. Planning and Environmental Commission: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for final approval, approval with modifications, or denial of a variance application, in accordance with Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code. Design Review Board: The Design Review Board has no review authority over a variance application. However, the Design Review Board is responsible for the final approval, approval with modifications, or denial of any accompanying design review application. Town Council: The Town Council has the authority to hear and decide appeals from any decision, determination, or interpretation by the Planning and Environmental Commission and/or 2 • Design Review Board. The Town Council may also call up a decision of the Planning and Environmental Commission and/or Design Review Board. Staff: The Town Staff facilitates the application review process. Staff reviews the submitted application materials for completeness and general compliance with the appropriate requirements of the Town Code. Staff also provides the Planning and Environmental Commission a memorandum containing a description and background of the application; an evaluation of the application in regard to the criteria and findings outlined by the Town Code; and a recommendation of approval, approval with modifications, or denial. V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Staff believes that the following provisions of the Vail Town Code are relevant to the review of this proposal: TITLE 12: ZONING REGULATIONS Article 12-6H: High Density Multiple-Family (HDMF) District (in part) 12-6H-1: PURPOSE: The high density multiple-family district is intended to provide sites for multiple- family dwellings at densities to a maximum of twenty five (25) dwelling units per acre, together with such public and semipublic facilities and lodges, private • recreation facilities and related visitor oriented uses as may appropriately be located in the same district. The high density multiple-family district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities commensurate with high density apartment, condominium and lodge uses, and to maintain the desirable residential and resort qualities of the district by establishing appropriate site development standards. Certain nonresidential uses are permitted as conditional uses, which relate to the nature of Vail as a winter and summer recreation and vacation community and, where permitted, are intended fo blend harmoniously with the residential character of the district. 12-6H-6: SETBACKS: The minimum front setback shall be twenty feet (20'), the minimum side setback shall be twenty feet (20'), and the minimum rear setback shall be twenty feet (20 ). Chapter 12-17: Variances (in part) 12-17-1: PURPOSE: A. Reasons For Seeking Variance: In order to prevent or to lessen such practical difficulties and unnecessary physical hardships inconsistent with the objectives of this title as would result • from strict or literal interpretation and enforcement, variances from certain regulations may be granted. A practical difficulty or unnecessary ahvsical hardship may result from the size. share. or dimensions of a site or the location of existina structures thereon: from toaoaraahic or ahvsical • conditions on the site or in the immediate vicinity: or from other ahvsical limitations, street locations or conditions in the immediate vicinity. Cost or inconvenience to the applicant of strict or literal compliance with a regulation • shall not be a reason for granting a variance. VI. SITE ANALYSIS Address: Legal Description: Zoning: Land Use Plan Designation: Current Land Use: Lot Area: 103 Willow Place Lot 4, Block 6, Vail Village Filing 1 High Density Multiple-Family (HDMF) Village Master Plan Multiple-Family Residential 0.3633 acres (15,825 sq. ft.) Standard Allowed/Reouired Existina Proposed Setbacks: Front: 20 ft. 14 ft. no change Sides 20 ft. 0 ft./ 1 ft. no change Rear: 20 ft. 0 ft. no change Site Coverage (max): 8,704 sq. ft. (55%) 6,762 sq. ft. (43%) 6,945 sq. ft. (44%) Landscaping (min): 4,748 sq.ft. (30%) 7,272 sq. ft. (46%) no change VII. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Land Use Zoning North: Gore Creek Outdoor Recreation (OR) South: Willow Park Outdoor Recreation (OR) East: Multiple-Family Residential High Density Multiple-Family (HDMF) West: Multiple-Family Residential High Density Multiple-Family (HDMF) VIII. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS The review criteria for a variance request are established by Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code. A. Consideration of Factors Reaardina Variances: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The existing Edelweiss building is non-conforming in regard to several provisions of the Town's zoning regulations such as setbacks. The proposed front entry and rear deck/balcony encroachments are no greater than the existing conditions. Staff does not believe the proposed setback variances will have a significant negative affect upon other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity in comparison to existing conditions. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation • and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity 4 • or to attain the objectives of this title without a grant of special privilege. The Edelweiss was approved by the Town of Vail and constructed prior to the Town adopting zoning regulation in 1972. The Planning and Environmental Commission has consistently held that construction of a structure prior to the adoption of the current zoning regulations may be a basis for granting a variance from the Town's current zoning regulations. The applicant is not proposing to encroach further into the required front, rear, or stream setbacks than the existing legally non-conforming building. In recent years, the Planning and Environmental Commission has granted similar setback variances for legally non-conforming properties within the High Density Multiple-Family District such as the adjacent Riva Ridge North and Riva Ridge South. Other similarly non-conforming properties such as the Lodge Tower and Mountain Haus have also been granted similar setback variances in other zone districts. ~,x~t~ Staff believes this proposal will provide the minimum relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of the setback regulations necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity among sites in the vicinity and within the High Density Multiple-Family District. Additionally, Staff does not believe this proposal will constitute a grant of special privilege. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Since the proposed setback encroachments are no greater than the existing legally non-conforming encroachments; Staff does not believe this proposal will have a significant impact on the public health, safety or welfare, public facilities, utilities, or light and air in comparison to existing conditions of the site. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. The Edelweiss is located within the "Periphery/Surrounding Area" of the Vail Village Master Plan. While the Edelweiss is not subject to the architectural standards of the Urban Design Guide Plan for the Vail Village, Staff believes the proposed Edelweiss renovations are in keeping with the intent and purpose of these guidelines. The Edelweiss is located within the Willow Circle Sub-Area #2 of the Vail Village Master Plan. While there are no specific plan recommendations associated with the Edelweiss, Staff believes the proposed renovation of • the Edelweiss is consistent with the overall goals of the master plan. Specifically, Staff believes the proposed renovations further the goals of encouraging the upgrading of residential properties and improving the • pedestrian experience within the village. The design review application associated with this proposal was conceptually reviewed by the Town of Vail Design Review Board at its June 21, 2005, public hearing. The Board responded very favorably toward the applicant's proposal. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. • b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply .,,d==~1• generally to other properties in the same zone. c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval, with a condition, of a variance, from Sections 12-6H-6, Setbacks, and 12-14-17, Setback from Water Course, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for a new front entry and deck addition within the setbacks, located at 103 Willow Place/Lot 4, Block 6, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. This recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria in Section VIII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission approves, with a condition, the applicant's request for a variance from Sections 12-6H-6, Setbacks, and 12-14- 17, Setback from Water Course, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for a new front entry and deck addition within the setbacks, • located at 103 Willow Place/Lot 4, Block 6, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto, subject to the following condition: 6 • 1. This approval shall be contingent upon the applicant receiving Town of Vail approval of the design review application associated with this variance request." Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings: "The Planning and Environmental Commission finds: 1. The granting of this variance will not constitute a granting of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the High Density Multiple-Family (HDMF) District. 2. The granting of this variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. This variance is warranted for the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of Title 72, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions • applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the High Density Multiple-Family (HDMF) District. c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the High Density Multiple-Family (HDMF) District. " X. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Applicant's Request C. Photographs D. Architectural Plans E. Public Hearing Notice 7 -`~ pax ggo ~_~ -$~ spa go ~~ Eqq5 S'~ og ~~ ~~ ~3 ~F 80 N_ = C9 > NSF 3 'b b a" E r • 0 Attachment: B Iany A. D~eclca>rci AJ.A. P.OBax725 . Avon, Coiaacb 81620 Pl~e (970)569-3102 Fax (970) SH9-3103 June 12 , 2006 To: Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Rd. Vail, CO 81657 (970) 479-2139 Dear Sirs: This letter is to describe the nature of the variance request for the Edelweiss condominium building at 103 Willow Place in Vail. The Edelweiss homeowners want to do a remodel of the exterior of their existing building. This remodel will include new deck rails, new stucco colors, new window casings and shutters and reconfiguring of the front entry and entry vestibule space. The existing entry structure roof encroaches on the front 20 foot building setback by about six feet. The proposed new entry structure will have the same roof area and the same encroachment. The new entry way will remedy existing head height problems (6'6" head clearance) and provide a more • gracious entry statement. The new entry design is of the same Tyrolean character as the new deck rails and building ornamentation. The existing roof and the new roof configuration provide for a covering over the steps that are necessary for entry into the building. There is no change to site coverage or building setbacks with the new roof configuration. Riverhouse condominiums to the west of the Edelweiss did an exterior remodel in 1999. This building added a new entry area and covering at the front as part of their remodel. This variance allows the Edelweiss Condominiums the ability to improve the look of the existing building with no new encroachments. Thank you for your attention in the reviewing of the Edelweiss request for a variance. Please let me know if additional information is needed. Thank ~~ . V Larry A. Deckard A.I.A • Architect ttaahment~ C A .. 4 .J • • • ~• ~~ a ~y~~ ~ ~' drn ~ ~ r- a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ R ~g a 0 L ~~\ ~• Attachment: D ~~ ~ ~ o \~~; i t ~ ~ _ i ~ ~ ~~~ ~6 ~ i .:~ ' ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I j i ~: ~ rno~ ~, , I ~ ' ~ I f ~ j ~ ~ a~a I ~ ~ ~ 1 ~~ ~~ ~ I ~ 1 ~ ~ ~~~ ~'-~` /~ R it ~, lad;, ,- ~ T , ~ -- -~-_: _~ o~ -- ~~, . - ~ m0 ~ A ~ ~r z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ u 3 (~p • i a , 9 ggc~s 4 {a5+ pp~ ~~ y', k ~ ~ ~ 9 ~~~ 4~ ~a~~ ~; ~~ ~ ~~ SCR ~ ~~4 R ~?RC9 ~~~ ~~d ~~A ~~ ~~ T ~ 2~. ~~~ Bq cg ~x ~gg,s go ~, ~,~ ~ ;~~, syyy.R A ~d a {~ LRA ~ gx4A ~8 a~ S; %~ :K~ ~ ~5~ ~ d~~a ~' ~~~ ~`f~ ~R ~ r d, a A ~ ~Y~ ~~I ~F ~FOC ~~ ~ ?~ ~ 5~ ~ AaS b •A~~ d~~ R} E ~ P~ ~ ~ ~R® ~~~ v~ 'UHF^a ss ~ 06 ~ a~ ~ ~~~ i ~~~ ~Ap ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ a I! f ~`1 > i ~l~ EDELWEISS CONDOMINIUMS l03 WILLOW PLACE VAlC., COLO1tAD0 816.58 FAGLF. COUMY COLOI(.~O t ~ 6 ~~ ,,.~ '~ ~' `. ~-~~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~_ ~ r 1 k U p ~ ~ v o P ~ r y1 ~ T E p S ~` tt A , P ~ z ~'~ L I ~ ~I p ~1 X a .~ ~~ a o 1 v s 4~ o ~~ z ~. ~~~`~ a a '~ ~` „< r D 0 ~ ;~~~~ D ~ ~~o~~ ~ ~ a~=os aax~ r ~~~~~ ~ 1 A~„a~ O z ~'k~~ ~ ~~~a ~Na ~rn 6 O r -.~ O z z ~~~ s 50 -~;~ u z p~ ~P n ~~ ~, ~~ ~\ [~ EDELWEISS CONDOMINIUMS W., ~,~,.d.~,. v ~ y ~ { B ~ ~ a 9 l03 WILLOW PLACE VAIL, COLONADO 816.58 ~~,~ ~ ~ g ~ ~ e,~c~E courrrr I _,.,„ ~~ II COLOHAilO_J • X _ N -i z p 0 3 D z r r~ r -w r O ~ A ~ -0 ~ Z ~ ~~~ ~~ f ~ ~ rn z ~ ? p N _1 _ ~ QJ I a c r I rn - __ ~ / LP N O d rn n A ~ ? 0 0 z o~ 0 ti (~Jl - -_ _1 D z V\ cu rn rn Ok x ~ 1 N ~ ~ (1 NO O -~ < m m ~ ;p r m z O G~ ~ z n A -1 ~ N 'z G~ .o f ~I C i I~~f ~^ Y k~--~' ~~ -- ~ ~ O z d ~ O F a ~ ¢ w ~ EDELWEISS CONDOMINIUMS a ~ ~ y g ~ ~ - I03 Vl ILLO~M1' PUCE VAIL, COLnRAnn 51658 Y ~ 3 EAGLE COI f~l'Il' COLORADO a rn n A C^s I~n'~ Ikclu,J ~_IA _ ,,,~.,, D ~- m m ,~' 0 rn N -~ rn ~~ rn O ~ I I I ~ ~ ~ ~ I i ,~ ~ I I ~ I ~ I i i i i i i i i I i ~i I i ®~~~®~~~ i i ~i I I rn ~ i I I X ,; rn i I I N ~- r ~ -1 o f11 , ~ ~i Ql -~ I ~ I ~ Di I r d ®~ ®~ z I I I ~I i i ~1 ~ i I ~i i ~i rn j i i l l r - rn ~ < i ~ i o ~ I ~ i i ~i i i ~~ I I L1J L l_J L1J ~ i l l I i i i~~€w D m m „~ 0 m „• of i I i i I i i I i ~ ~ ; ~ ~ ° ° ° ~ '`-~ p I °a~a~°a~°~ o ~ oa~oa~oo~o~ z i i i i i i i i ~~~~~ ., i i i I I i i I I I ( ~ m f~ 1 n ;pill, i i ~~~~~~~~ o ~ , i = i i I I rn ~i i r i i ~ ! I I ®I ~ ~ I i i I =i I i ~ i ®i O I i i ®i I i i i i i i i i ®I ®i i i I I ~~ I I ! ~I ®I i i I I i I ~~oa~oo~o~ I ~i i I EDELWEISS CONDOMINIUMS ~ ~~~,~ 103 WILLOW PLACE VAIL, COLORADO 81658 ewct.~ coursrr - coww~ao • ~~w - a ~ ~ R F ~ gg~~g S CONDOMINIUMS - `~,"~~`~~;+,_^M ~- 4r EDELWEIS~~ VAIL, COLORADO 516.58 :, 108 w'ILLOW PLA~cteCOUV~' =^~'.J cot.o~~~~ I I I 1 m -t r'~ ~ _ ~ o • ~, ~ ~ \' ~ti l ~~> ~rn O ~ (~~ ~ \\\ O • I _G~~n \`r.C I y ! ~~ D of rn C' =1 ,~' rn ~r o rnI ~ I ~~ ~ : ~~ o I ~~ ~~ 1 i 9 Y 9 A 4 ~ g 8 ~ ~I Idol ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~r~ ~~ ~~ ~~ , ~; ,: ~~, ~ ~ i ~~' r i i~ ,. ~~~ i i i ~~ \\ ~~ I ~ I ' I ~1.! + EDELWEISS CONDOMINIUMS 103 WILLOW PLACE VAIL, COLORADO 81658 ewcl~: courrrr COLORADO \\ I~ ~GI ~' I~ _- JI I ~ I ~` r ~ll~ I .. . ~ I :7 • 1~ u DI m m 0 I I I I l ~~~ I ~ ~ ~I I rn ! ~~ ~i I I I o~ ~; -III' ' I P ' I '' I I I I I I I I I I J ~ I I I I I I - I i i l i i i i I ~ ~°~a~° I I ° a ®~~~® ® ~~ ~ I ~ ®~ ~~~ = i i IL rn: rn~ I I -~ ~ - IO I q I ~ ~®--~~i i~ I I l~l I i~ i i !' !~ ~ I ~- ~ I I I I I i i i i ~i i i I tf I I I I II I I I ~ e { i it q R I ~~ g B~ g g g ,~ 0 D rn i 1 I I D) I I ~ I i II ~~~ 0 D m m p D-°u °~~°C ~~ i ° ° °a a ~~°c rn,~ ou~oa~oa~oC o ~ ~ ou~o[]~ou~o[ z I I I i i i i I~~ i i i I I I I I I I I I I I I I m r~ r-1 '~ -- ~ I I s IIII ~ i ~d ~~ ~~ I1' f~l ~ l ~ (~ Z ~ i r ~ i~ ~ / ~ ~1~ ,~t ,, ® i O E~ I a I ®I~ I Z ~~! i ®I i I I ® I i ~ I I ~ ! ~ I I ®I i I I I i ~ °o~°~ °I o , i ~ i i ~~ i i- i I I i i I I ~ I D) EDELWEISS CONDOMINIUMS ~.a~ti~A 103 WILLOW PLACE VA14 COLORADO 81658 "^"'° twct.~ courrrv ~~, coi.orsntx~ - .~ ~ A 4 ~ ~---~ ~ . ~- ~ 3 314. 5 tlb' 5 U6' I'-Z 314. ~ 5 UB' p r ~i a~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~W ~ ~ Q ~,c - b p `~ ~ ~~ 11 ~ p~ 51f8" fi g ~~ ~'' 4 s ary ggiijPo i. a~~ 1"R ~.? ~~ I ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ga ~`aM E~~r R 2~y° ~ ° ~ a ~ ~ t s { i~{ A1~ ~ ~y ~ 8 'd y Y 9 ~ ~' ~ t ' Y G i i S~ v ~. 3° EYpp ?Q 0 nt 4~~ ~~~ -~ 4~~ ~4 ~ gi8 ~d ` i ~~o~DaMY~o ~5~ ~~" ~~ ~pE~w ~C~ ,~. ~~ ~Y ~~o 103 ~,ot-off` - J • X _ N -f • Z p 0 •r 0 b ~ 7 r z ~p~ r O -~ o ~ Z r rn o ~~~ ~ r _ 5~ z /~ d O ~~ ~ ~ r- i i L- ~~ V /~ ~ O ~F ~~ A x_ x~ ~ ~ ~ i R ~ g ~ ~ ~ g ~ ~ ~g ~~~~~~~~~ ~a ~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~ - ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~. EDELWEISS CONllOMINIUMS l03 Wll.LOW PLACE VAIL, COLORADO 616 ~6 Enc.LE couvn~ cuLO~+no ~~ ~I _J i ~i ~i i _~ _~ i ~i ~i ~~ ~£ ~o ~...~..,~,:,a- ... . .4.IUn1 _ '` 0 . ,E ~ =~E a ~~ 1_ ~~ N ~ ~ ~~a ~ I ~ -~ ~ n -....` -_ l J ! F L.E., i E Y fi~ @~ ~~` ~ ~ - r ~.j +- ~x~ y M1 of f ,Z ~~ A8g {~~ ~ Fs s5 ~~ °//o ) ~i A ~ Y~ oI ~/, ~` .'4~i~ ~ ~ as f ~ ~ ~,+ d& tqY~ i ~xgp. ~ s~ f.,' + ~6F ~ ~E -~l o'+ )jf'1 ~ f ;wQ ~ ,• ,, ~ _ f !~ ~+at +0'+e~ ~~ ~ 4 ,~ `!~ 1 ~` i l~ a~ ~' ~. jib ~y @ ;~ , $ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~` 1' ~ 1 ~ ~s\ ~~ ~ i ~t, , a 'tiI i ~I t ~~ , 8 ; `\ ~ ~ ~ 1, 1: p0 o ~~ ~ , 0 Z e N a H FPRE, 'LLq t b~~'i %sa9 ; ~ +~ - ~ 3T:~EE,, a ~N LEgsY'~ a~~~ q r E.y %.PRi~ ~qr ~ F}~~ f~ ~ ~/,Pq q q g.y.. g~:, K <o,7i 3 V a 8$R Ra~k~ g~ ~ ta~~"s'sq=? CD-+~z 3g'k'3s i~: _ ~cg$ ~:F^§£ g ty~5 ~ ~~ a ~ Lxx. Z ~ ~ a ~: :$3 a"s i g Y#E ~¢ •' ~a 9a3"- , '¢ a~q~~a 5=~~ s o <¢ mm L~ • ~"g v R~Lr fi,~k~~ Q :ae~ S, d~ 4E44P S''a=, $ ~ ~ m ti a ig;.}s c{ i 8 ~~$o ~'g4 afl E :ia,. ~a yFi[a9 b~v~s inn -~ °i°-.~ ;- ~ & ~~ x ~~'~xaE d ~'' ~ r 'b c5x s: ES ;,P 3 ~ a aE~{, A ~,2 qp"P• ~-4 !~ ~Q, ~ ~L;E e % Yrp s3P.~~A"°~ i~P3 € a eLtpit ~^~ DF1 ~ ~ ^ i.E}~~ ffff4 ~a~ FR ~~a ~F ~ d~a 'E~7^ p~ n ~ '' ? iE ~~i~.~ i- 4 ~ o ~~ o I u ^~ 7; Yj ~i ~ k oZt ~a~Fa ~1 4 ~ ~. ~p ~, n~ n sEf... :; Ys L R-G C 5€ § +~ ~•aF 5$"4 ~ 2. ~ 1 :~ fS:L ~~ 4e ! ~ ~44je ~~~ ~ ~ $~ p e 9a ~ Z.~ ;~ e~ ~Z Z Cl -1 i_4~`i .. ~ { ~ 4 n ¢?": Sr ~ 1 n v o -+ r r~ at D m ~ n. Attachment: E • i ~~ ~., , THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with section 12-3-6, Vail Town Code, on July 10, 2006, at 2:00 pm in the Town of Vail Municipal Building, in consideration of: A request for a final review of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat, Vail Town Code, to allow for the combination of Lot 1 and Tract A of the Cliffside Subdivision into a single lot, located at 1452 Buffehr Creek Road/ Lot 1 and Tract A, Cliffside Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0042) Applicant: Mike Young Planner: Warren Campbell ~~=f} -a~=•° A request for a final review of a variance, from Sections 12-6H-6, Setbacks, and 12-14- 17, Setback from Water Course, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for a new front entry and deck addition within the~~setbacks, located at 103 ' -~3~c~• Willow Place/Lot 4, Block 6, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0043) Applicant: Edelweiss Condominium Association, represented by Larry Deckard Planner: Bill Gibson • A request for a final review of a variance, from Section 12-6C-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, pursuant to chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for a bedroom addition within the front and side setbacks, located at 4269 Nugget Lane/Lot 3, Bighorn Estates Townhouses, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0044) Applicant: Nugget Lane Partners, LLC, represented by Morter Architects Planner: Elisabeth Reed A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3- 7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for text amendments to Article 12-7A, Public Accommodations District, Vail Town Code, to allow for banks and financial institutions as a conditional use within the Public Accommodations District, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0047) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Rachel Friede The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call 970-479-2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request, with 24-hour notification. Please call 970-479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. • Published June 23, 2006, in the Vail Daily. MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 10, 2006 SUBJECT: A request for a final review of a variance, from Section 12-6C-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, pursuant to chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for a bedroom addition within the side setback, located at 4269 Nugget Lane/Lot 3, Bighorn Estates Townhouses, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0044) Applicant: Nugget Lane Partners, LLC, represented by Morter Architects Planner: Elisabeth Reed I. SUMMARY The applicant, Nugget Lane Partners, represented by Morter Architects, is requesting a variance from Section 12-6C-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, to allow for an addition in the side setback, located at 4269 Nugget Lane. The house is already located within each of its side setbacks and partially within the front setback. The proposed addition in the east setback would result in an increase in the amount of bulk and mass in the front and side required setbacks by seventy (70) square feet. Based upon Staff's review of the criteria in Section VIII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends approval, with a condition, of a variance to allow for the construction of a second-story bedroom addition in the side setback subject to the findings and conditions noted in Section IX of this memorandum. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant is proposing the addition of a second story bedroom to an existing residence located at 4269 Nugget Lane. The existing residence is joined to another residence on another lot via a shared wall, but is located upon its own lot. It is an existing legally non-conforming structure in regard to several aspects of the Two-Family Primary/Secondary Residential zone district, including both side and front setback regulations, and the allowable site coverage regulation. The west side of the home currently encroaches more than nine feet (9') into the fifteen foot (15') required west side setback and the east side of the home encroaches fifteen feet (15') into the fifteen foot (15') required east setback at all points along that property line. The buildable area upon the lot calculated using only the setback~regulations is a • mere 399 square feet. Alongside the request to located GRFA within the east setback, however, the applicant is also proposing to eliminate several square feet of site coverage, by reducing the size of a trash enclosure at the west wail, thereby allowing the existing house to become more conforming in the process. The proposed addition includes a complete remodel of the residence, involving the construction of approximately 196 square feet of additional living space, of which seventy (70) square feet is proposed to occur at the second story within the east side setback. Currently the entire main level of the residence is located within the east setback. The applicant is proposing to locate the second story addition in the setback due to the existing configuration of the two-family structure upon the lot. The applicant has successfully avoided further encroachment into the front setback than already exists. The applicant's request, architectural drawings, and photos of the residence are attached for reference (Attachments A, B, and C). The public notice is attached as well (Attachment D). III. BACKGROUND The subject lot was originally a part of Lots 10 and 11, which were annexed into the Town of Vail in 1974. Sometime in the mids, Lots 10 and 11 were subdivided into seven (7) small separate lots, which were immediately non-conforming in regard to many development standards. The existing residence, located at 4269 Nugget Lane, is therefore legally non-conforming in regard to the Town's current setback regulations, a trait which it shares with the other six (6) lots that are located in the Bighorn Estates Townhouses subdivision. Regarding design review, the applicant's proposal is slated to be reviewed by the Design Review Board at its July 19, 2006 public hearing. IV. ROLES OF REVIEWING BODIES Order of Review: Generally, applications will be reviewed first by the Planning and Environmental Commission for acceptability of use and then by the Design Review Board for compliance of proposed buildings and site planning. Planning and Environmental Commission: Action: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for final approval/deniallapprovaltyith conditions of a variance. Design Review Board: Action: The Design Review Board has NO review authority on a variance, but must review any accompanying Design Review Board application. Town Council: Actions of Design Review Board or Planning and Environmental Commission may be appealed to the Town Council or by the Town Council. Town Council evaluates whether or not the Planning and Environmental Commfission or Design Review Board erred with approvals or denials and can uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the board's decision. 2 • Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided and plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines. Staff provides a staff memorandum containing background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Staff believes that the following provisions of the Vail Town Code are relevant to the review of this proposal: TITLE 12: ZONING REGULATIONS 12-6C-1: PURPOSE: The two-family residential district is intended to provide sites for low density single-family or two-family residential uses, together with such public facilities as may be appropriately located in the same district. The two-family residential • district is intended fo ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling, commensurate with single-family and two-family occupancy, and fo maintain the desirable residential ~ qualities of such sites by establishing appropriate site development standards. 12-6C-6: SETBACKS: In the R district, the minimum front setback shall be twenty feet (20'), the minimum side setback shall be fifteen feet (15'), and the minimum rear setback shall be fifteen feet. Chapter 12-17: Variances 12-17-1: Purpose: A. Reasons For Seeking Variance: In order to prevent or to lessen such practical difficulties and unnecessary physical hardships inconsistent with the objectives of this title as would result from strict or literal interpretation and enforcement, variances from certain regulations may be granted. A practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship may result from the size, shape, or dimensions of a site or the location of existing structures thereon; from topographic or physical conditions on the site or in the immediate vicinity; or from other physical limitations, street locations or conditions in fhe immediate vicinity. Cost or inconvenience to the applicant of strict or literal compliance with a regulation shall not be a reason for granting a variance. _ • VI. SITE ANALYSIS • Address: 4269 Nugget Lane Legal Description: Lot 3, Bighorn Estates (a resubdivision of Lots 10 & 11, Bighorn Estates) Zoning: Two-Family Residential (R) Land Use Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential Current Land Use: Residential Lot Area: 4,412 sq. ft. / 0.1013 acres Development Standard Allowed/Reouired Existing Proposed Setbacks: Front: 20' 16.8' no change West Side: 15' S.6' no change East Side: 15' 0' 12' (2"d story) Rear: 15' 88' no change Density: 1 DU 1 DU no change GRFA: 2,029 sq. ft. 1,803 sq. ft. 1,999 sq. ft. Site Coverage: 882 sq. ft. (20%) 1,309 sq. ft. 1,305 sq. ft. (--29.6%) (-29.5°l0) Landscape Area: 2,647 sq. ft. (60%) 2,863 sq. ft. 2,868 sq. ft. Parking: 2 spaces 2 spaces no change VII. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Current Land Use Zoning North: Residential Two-Family Residential South: Open Space Natural Area Preservation East: Residential SDD#27 West: Open Space Agriculture, Open Space VIII. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS The review criteria for a request of this nature are established by Chapter 12-16, Vail Town Code. A. Consideration of Factors Reaardino the Setback Variances: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The proposed bedroom addition in the second story of the east side setback is similar to setback variance regQests that have been granted to several other residences within this • neighborhood. Following is a list of similar variances granted to 4 • the lots within the Bighorn Estates Resubdivision of Lots 10 and 11: • Lot 1: 2004, 2nd story side setback granted for 205 square feet of GRFA on 4,768 square foot lot. • Lot 2: 1995, side setback variances granted for GRFA additions (limited information in file). • Lot 5: 1992, front, side and site coverage variances granted for additional GRFA on 4,612 square foot lot. • Lot 7: 1978, front setback variance granted for initial construction of home; 1994, entryway addition granted for GRFA within front setback; 2000, side setback variance granted for 52 square feet of GRFA at 2"d story. The existing residence is anon-conforming structure in regard to the provisions of the Town's current setback and site coverage regulations. Because Lots 10 and 11 were subdivided into such small lots, each lot was non-conforming from the outset in regard to setbacks and minimum lot size, providing minimum buildable areas for each lot. Staff believes that there will be no negative impacts associated with the addition as proposed, particularly due to its location, opposite from the adjoining residence and within the second story side setback as opposed to the first story front or side setbacks. • 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without a grant of special privilege. Staff believes that the proposed addition to this residence is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Mulfiple neighboring owners have already constructed similar additions. Staff believes that several justifications exist to allow for a variance from the side setbacks, including the existing non- conforming house location on the site and the extremely small size of the lot, 4,412 square feet (0.1013 acres). Due to a total buildable area of just 399 square feet, variance from the side setback requirements for the proposed addition may be necessary to provide relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of the setback regulations necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity among sites in the vicinity and within the Two-Family Residential (R) District. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. • Staff does not believe the proposed setback encroachment will • have a significant impact on the public health, safety or welfare, public facilities, utilities, or light and air in comparison to existing conditions on the site. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. The applicants' proposal will be reviewed by the Design Review Board at its July 19, 2006 public hearing, which is noted as the one condition of approval associated with this request. B. The Plannina and Environmental Commission shall make the following findinas before arantina a variance: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: • a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. IX. STAFF RECOMMENDAT{ON The Community Development Department recommends approval, with a condition, of a variance from Section 12-6C-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, to allow for a bedroom addition within the side setback., located at 4269 Nugget Lane/Lot 3, Bighorn Estates Townhouses, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Staff's recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria in Section VIII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this • variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: 6 • "The Planning and Environmental Commission approves, with conditions, the applicant's request for a variance from Section 12-6C-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12- 17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a bedroom addition within the side setback, located at 4269 Nugget Lane/Lot 3, Bighorn Estates Townhouses, and setting forth details in regard thereto, subject to the following condition: 1. This approval shall be contingent upon the applicant receiving Town of Vail approval of the design review application associated with this variance request. " Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings: "The Planning and Environmental Commission finds: 1. The granting of this variance will not constitute a granting of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the Two Family Residential (R) Districf. 2. The granting of this variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. This variance is warranted for the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable fo the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the Two Family Residential (R) District. c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the Two-Family Residential (R) District." X. ATTACHMENTS A. Applicant's Statement B. Architectural Plans C. Photos of the Site • D. Public Notice E. Vicinity Map A Professional Corporation 2271 N Frontage Road W. Suite C Vail, CO 81657 9701 476-5105 FAX 970/ 476-0710 MA@morterarchltects.com June 12, 2006 Elisabeth Reed Town of Vail Dept. of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Re: 4269 Nugget Lane Lot 3, Bighorn Estates Vail, Co Dear Elisabeth; Attachment: A MORTERARCH ITECTS We are respectfully requesting a zoning variance for the above referenced property. Our request is two-fold. First, the owner would like to raise the roof and create more residential floor area on the top level. A small portion of this expansion occurs within the setback to the adjacent property. Second, the property currently is over the allowed site coverage limit. We are not asking for more site coverage, but to reapportion the amount. As you discovered, this building was originally built like a joint property duplex with a party wall, but it is legally considered a single family. With the 15 foot setback required at the sideyards and 20 feet at the front, an unreasonably small area is available to build upon. (399 sf) If this property were to be built today, it would be basically impossible to design a usable building and a hardship would have to be considered. • • We are requesting to add a portion of the second story in the setback within 9 feet of the property line. There is precedent for this expansion in several of the adjacent "duplex" buildings. The property at 4257 Nugget Lane (two doors west) has expanded their entire second story up to the property line. See attached photos. The proposed second floor expansion on this property will not affect the light or shade of any adjacent neighbor. We are also proposing to cut back the overhang on the south portion of the new second story roof. We would like to reapportion a small amount of site coverage to add a new small roof over the front door. As shown on sheet A1.1, the existing site coverage is 1,309 SF and we are proposing to have 1,305 SF. Although this is over the allowed 882 SF, we are actually reducing the amount of non-compliance. Please review this and the attached submitted material and we will see you at the presentation to the PEC on July 10. r Leah ye•~ Senior Project Archi ect encl. cc: E. Pollack • Morterarchitecis.ccm • JEW BATHROOM to , lNTERlOR wALLs W BOILER FLUE ' r- I r II II II II I HIGH WINDOWS ~ TER DORMER r - - ~/ --- E~ THROOM ~~I e MASTER ElEDROOM ~~~~ ~ - - ~ fir`- i~ ~"f~' ~ rlT'~ ~ r~ ~ r~l~' ~r r~T'i i -~rir~-4-i -'rlr'-~-i ~'ri ~-r-~r'~-i ~-r4'-~- ~~ ~~ m~ ~~ in OPEN TO BELOW 0 0 MasTER EiATNROOM ~SHEWES UO I r ~ r- I 7~ ~~- ---A-.~.T~----- % I // / ~ ~ ~i ~ ~~ ~ .~. i ~ ~ , . ~ i i ~ i , ~ ~` , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r''r`- tl'` r`i` ~'r`- i-'~T` tr`- ~ ' ~- ~ rlT~ ~'~r r~ ~ r1T ~ ~ ~ i i ~ ~, ~ i i ~r4-'-4-i -'~r4'~~i ~4-~`~ ~,~- ~r`rr"ri ~ ~ I ' ~~ - - - Attachment: B 5'-0' HEADROOM (NO CHANGE FROM EXG) r-- ~ r-~ ~ ~'~ ~' ~ ~, ~ ~ f"~" ADD'L 70 5F OF GRFA WITHIN SIDE 5ETBAGK OR! tl~ ARCH ITECTS PROJECT; 4269 Nugget Lane Remodel TITLE: CLARIFICATION OF GRFA IN SETBACKS A Prolessbnel Corporatpn z1T, N. Pronleg. Roes w. SCALE: 3/ • . ~%0• NOTES: ADD'L 70 SF iN EAST CLARIFICATION SuMeO DWG#' A/2.00 SETBACK Vell, Cobraeo 67857 OF GRFA IN 970.476.5105 FROM: LKSM NO ADD'L GRFA IN COPYRIGHT 1006 870.478.07101e. © MORTER ARCHTECTS P.C. me~monererch6eou.oom ISSUED: 06.29.06 WEST SETBACK SETBACKS ,,,,,",,;'*~ E 101 'H31V1H3 LIOH'JIH '3Ntl1 13'J' E{f7N M64Z6' Y S1J311HJ21~/2131210~gJ '1340W3a 3NVl 13°Jflf1N ~~~ t I ~ o ~ ~ ~ f ~ _~ , ,I 4 .~jM ~~t ~p ~ I I I ~~~ ~ ~ I ~\ ~ ~~ I ~1 ~ti ~~ ~• 1 ~ ~; `,- I ~A 1 I ~< II 1 r~ I r ~~~ w - v~ w ~~~ ~~~ ~~d ~:rA ~ J ,~ R <= ~t°~I ~~ Q ~~~° ~~ i a ~ ~ ye k 5 ~ as a_ ,Ra s~ ~'~~ ~~e°i5 gSE i~~,~ ~ s~~~~a~ ~c~ ~~~~ a ~~~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~a~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ g~ ~ `~ ~ I ~~ , i , ~; I 1 _ ~ I b ~ I her I ~ -- _"_~ I u"Y ar ` I ^ I ~ S __ ~~.:. :. ' R~ ~ d ~ t ~1 ~. \ ,~~, ~ 5 ~ - \i %~ 1 t li d o ~ o ~ e~ ~ ~b €I,, o a ~ _ m~ ~~ •:~ CJ • ~_ ~-____~ -- ---- - ,~ -i -r- -- ~° e ~ ,~ ~Wa~ oodaolo~ 'v`on ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ „~ ~{ i a, £ 113"1 531`d153 1e 6 I ~,p,„,,,,,,,,,,e«. 2l 17 H'J' t9 ~3Nt/l 13£~rIN M69Zb ~ a I I '~I 'I ' "4 ~ ~ ++~^••'^~" ~• l3aOW3t! 3NVl 13~~J(lN I g ~ ! '1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ N~II-IJ~1 ?131?l0(~1( '~ 1 ~ ~ _. ~ ~~~ _- ~i S1J31 d _ ~~'- - --------- -- _- --- 1. ~~ 1 ~I -- - - ~ . ;~--- ~E-~ ~~ ~ 3 ~ o~ ' ~ '8 I ~ 3 ~ ~ µ m ~ , A d z~ ~ d .~ \~ ~ L l _ ~ -3 ~. J ^r. _~ ~ `- ~ ~~ ~SA ~2 ~ ~ S ~, ~._~,- ~ - ~ ~f 0 LL i 0 d~9 ~a _~ '~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ z ~ 41,1_ ~ ~ - ~ 1 ~~ ° ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ f ~ ~ _ - - \ ~ -- L II - ~ z ~ ~ Q ~ z . d ; ; ~ ~ ~{y I .~ ~~ ,r ,,. _s ~ 1 -- ~ J_ - ~ - j %^_ ~" ~ ~---q 1 ~!i', ra_ ~ mil; ~ ~i 'I 1 ,( ~~- -F >> j +j ~ a ~ ' ~ ~~~ ,1.1'1 ~ 1_ D ~ ~ ``~~~~~ a _ _ ~~ 1 I 0 D s ~ D =_ a K l- 4 \ '~ ~_ ~' ni I xi ~' ~, -_ ee '"' '"'~""'~'" 00\ft1O'1Ca~ 'llb'h a 'n' ,,,,, E l O l' S 91171 S 3 „„ ,.,„,~„ ,.,...,~,.~,„,.,,~ NL10H~J16 '3Nb'1 13'J~Jf1N M69Z 51~311H~2Jb2131?IO(/~ i 1300W3a 3NV"1 13E7O11N ~ E N ~I 1. ~ N i { 1 ~ 2~i~1~ ~~ ~~ 1~~ . I ~~ ^~ ~,,., : ~~ b z 3 S ..,~..... ' s~~ '~l F ~.. ~• ~~ I I ~-C~C~yy .O'b 4 oy ,524 I ~ ~_ ~J y I /I ~ i ~ I{ ~' I i y i~ '' 7 ~~I ~ ~ 11 I '' , ~ 1 ~ ~ ~, ~ I, as I ~ ,~ e i ~ ~Ij ~ I~ -r ~ ' , ^^r. o ~ i ~ I, 8 ~ L~ ^I ~ ~~ Fy ~ I { ~ ~ J ., i ~ ~~ i~ i n k q 1 ~~ J '•4' _ ,, ' ' 1 , 3 ~q w _; xa ~n ;. ~H~a„ , NbOH~JIE 51~311H~2~d2131?JOW ~3OC --~ -- • OVL7014^ 'llVn 101 'S31b'153 a e ~ ~ ~ ~'~ i~ 3NVl 13 ~J~f1N M69ZV ~ ' ' ~ ~ Vii '~ L ~x ; f1N W32J 3Nb 113F] J s i ' I i U ~p ~ I i i ~ ~~ ~~ li ~ i ~ U ~ .; ~1.tfiS i ZF ~ ~ ,y~ W ~~t b mW i ~ 1~y c~~'2 itc f t ~ _.1 1 ~ fiw~`~k~~~ 1.... _ _ r _ .. _ ~~ y,'..._~.,x., o~ ~~ ~4 ~~ ~ ~~ f ~z; f~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ z, ~ ~ ~9 ~ ~~ ~ _-- ~ ~ _~ _ _J ~ I~ ~ ~ t,, ~,, a ~~;.- 3} i3 l,T.~ ~ ~ ~ ~-~c r~ L____ ____.,y____~ ~ '~ HI ~~- - - _ii J Y ~~ ~~~ ;, a d~~ 4 oY oy I~M~ ': / ~~ ~~ x z3~ ~w„ ,~ r~,+,,,, , u« ,,,,.,,,e,,,,,,,,,,,„ ~ S1~311 HJ21y 2131yO~N( £ 1pl ~S31V183 a ', a p H'J' 19 3 N d7 13 ~J ~J ~l N M 6 9 Z b Y ~ ~ ~3apW3a 3NV'l 13'-J~JI'lN g ` ~ i = np I ~y,~ jp ~ t • ~ =AS . ~ O, '~[ -- - ~ --- I---~j ~j ~ I --- -- - ~ ' f i~ - ~ ~ r____ r I' ~~ i, , , ~~ '~~~1 ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~L~: ~ . ~ ~~ 1~ i t ~ ~ 1 I 1 L0. ~ 1 1 Ij ~/ ~ i' j2, ~~ ~, (~1 ~ i i ~r~ L~ ~, I4 ~~_'' ~.~.~ `~ -INS- ~ __~ ` Rz ~ ~~N z a fir ~ ,a, 9 ~~` ~ ~ ~~ d _, ~~ I ~ ~ I~S I ? fi~' ~ ~rt ~ I ~~I~i ! ~~~~ I ~ I ~I I ~ i { W3~~ ` ' I {I1~I,i I ! Ir ~ ~ 'I ~~ ~ ~`% ~ I / ~ ~~ l _ . ~~3~ ~~ ` ~~ ~ a ~~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~.~ ~ _~~~ ~, L,, ~ ~ ~I ~" ~, zI<. ~If ~~ ~ ~` o ~ ~- ~- ~~ ~a ~.T T ~Y ~~ P i ' I i m i ' s~. i }~cT { '~ ~ °~ ;,,, ,-- ;~~ ~a ~ `' ~~ I~~ ~, ~~ ~ ~' s Z~ ~3 y~ a 't i r- i ~ i t I! I Rr~dy yL~ ~' - ~'_ ~~' 'i ~',~ a i I ~~ ~ ~!, I ~ ;. ~J ~" _,[_ ZZ ~J qq~ NS 1 3 ~. u "~~ ~;. f I _~ i -~, I i ~~~, C7 • ale j I 2JOHJ' 18 `3NVl 130'JIIN M69Zb I ,;Q I~ S1J31iHJ?Jy?l31?IOW 1340W3a 3Nt/11300f1N - I~~~ 'I,,i i; _JI ~~ ~ I ~ i i ~~~I~ ~~ ~ ~„ m m ~ ~, ~~~ S ~ Vii: 5q rim 'Se "~ ;~ ~. i i I j ~ ~ I '~ ~ . ~~ i I I I~I -~~.- 7 ' ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ gti i~ d ZN j~~ a~~ _ ~i1~ ~~j~ ~', ~__ i 3~ ~( ~ ~,~I ~ ljy.~, I it j~, I~ j ~'D~o ! ~ ~ ~-~ ~, I I ~ .~ ~ n I ~ ~ j ~ ~ ;~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ i l i ~i j ~ i II ~ -- ° q 14-- Try -~ ~ i i ~ ~ ~ ~ ?j ~~_ __ I ~~~-~ -- ,; ,jI -=- ~_- j ~ ~ i - ,,__ ,IE____ .,~_ ~~~--- ~~`=_~~ .~r-- --1j J~ ~~ t _ __. ~ I -- ----- ~_ . ~~`._ ~ rDl_. _ ----- ~~-------il i, T~ _ F - - ~- ~-- ~ ~ g .v C} x~ rl ~ _ 'S ~ ; ai C 71~ y° 1. s~~ ,y ~~ 1, 'W ~} y. Attachment: C • 4269 Nugget Lane DRB submittal -June 12, 2006 4269 Nugget Lane -Existing west facade _ • • 4269 Nugget Lane DRB submittal -June 12, 2006 4269 Nugget Lane -Existing rear facade .4269 Nugget Lane -adjacent property (east side) • • 4269 Nugget Lane DRB submittal -June 12, 2006 4259 Nugget Lane • • • 4269 Nugget Lane DRB submittal -June 12, 2006 4289e Nugget Lane Attachment: D ,~~.~~,~~ ~ THIS ITEM MAPUBL C NOTIOER PROPERTY NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with section 12-3-6, Vail Town Code, on July 10, 2006, at 2:00 pm in the Town of Vail Municipal Building, in consideration of: A request for a final review of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat, Vail Town Code, to allow for the combination of Lot 1 and Tract A of the Cliffside Subdivision into a single lot, located at 1452 Buffehr Creek Road/ Lot 1 and Tract A, Cliffside Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0042) Applicant: Mike Young Planner: Warren Campbell A request for a final review of a variance, from Sections 12-6H-6, Setbacks, and 12-14- 17, Setback from Water Course, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for a new front entry and deck addition within the setbacks, located at 103 Willow Place/Lot 4, Block 6, Vai! Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0043) Applicant: Edelweiss Condominium Association, represented by Larry Deckard Planner: Bill Gibson A request for a final review of a variance, from Section 12-6C-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, pursuant to chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for a bedroom addition within the front and side setbacks, located at 4269 Nugget Lane/Lot 3, Bighorn Estates Townhouses, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0044) Applicant: Nugget Lane Partners, LLC, represented by Morter Architects Planner: Elisabeth Reed A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3- 7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for text amendments to Article 12-7A, Public Accommodations District, Vail Town Code, to allow for banks and financial institutions as a conditional use within the Public Accommodations District, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0047) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Rachel Friede The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call 970-479-2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request, with 24-hour notification. Please call 970-479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Published June 23, 2006, in the Vail Daily. • ~~~ ~~~` • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 10, 2006 SUBJECT: A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for text amendments to Article 12- 7A, Public Accommodations District, Vail Town Code, to allow for banks and financial institutions as a conditional use within the Public Accommodations District, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0047) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Rachel Friede • 1. SUMMARY The applicant, Town of Vail, is requesting that the Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation to the Vail Town Council regarding the proposed text amendments to Article 12-7A, Public Accommodations District, Vail Town Code, to allow for "temporary banks and financial institutions" as a conditional use within the Public Accommodations District, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Based upon Staff's review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council for the proposed text amendments to Article 12- 7A, Public Accommodations District, Vail Town Code, subject to the findings noted in Section VII of this memorandum. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST During this time of major redevelopement, many businesses become displaced from their locations. There are numerous buildings in Vail Village that will be redeveloped in the next few years, and subsequently, all the businesses that occupy those buildings will be searching for new locations. For example, the potential redevelopment of Crossroads will lead to the displacement of many businesses, not all of which are permitted uses in other zone districts. While most businesses can easily relocate under current Zoning Regulations, it seems that it will be difficult for "banks and financial institutions" to relocate to the Public Accommodations District. The Zoning Regulations currently allow "Business Offices" as a conditional use within the PA District. While one may consider a bank to be a business office, it does not clearly meet the definition outlined in Chapter 12-2: Definitions. TheZoning Regulations also include a land use called "Temporary Business Offices," which provides for offices to relocate for up to three years. Again, the definition of "Temporary Business Offices" does not clearly include banks. Another important aspect of this discussion is that "Banks and Financial Institutions" are an individual land use, which are permitted in the basement or garden level of the Commercial Core 1 (CC1), Lionshead Mixed Use 1 (LMU-1) and Lionshead Mixed Use 2 (LMU-2) Districts, second floor of CC1 District, and all of the CC3 and Commercial ' Service Center Districts. "Banks and Financial Institutions" are a conditional use of the Housing District, Arterial Business District and on the 1 St floor or street level and above the second floor in the CC1 District. "Banks with walk-up teller facilities" are a permitted use on the 1St floor or street level of LMU-1 and LMU-2 Districts. "Financial Institutions, other than banks" are a conditional use within the LMU-1 District above the second floor. However, banks and financial institutions are not a permitted or conditional use within the PA District. In order to accommodate potential movement of banks to the PA District, Staff is proposing text amendments to Article 12-7A, Public Accommodations District, Vail Town Code. Staff has considered four options for amending Article 12-7A, Public Accommodations District, in order to accommodate the relocation of banks and financial institutions to the PA District during the boom in redevelopment. Option #1: Amend the definition of "Temporary business office" to clearly include banks and financial institutions and add this land use as a conditional use within the PA District. Staff feels that while "banks and financial institutions" may be slightly alluded to in the definition of "Temporary business office," it does not necessarily include banks. "Temporary business office" is only listed as a conditional use of the first floor of Lionshead Mixed Use 1 (LMU-1) District. This option would allow "Banks and financial institutions" to be relocated to the PA District with a conditional use permit that would be reviewed by the PEC on an annual basis, per the definition of "Temporary Business Office" (See Section V of this memo). However, "business offices" are already a conditional use of the PA District, so this addition would only really apply to banks, which would not fall under "business offices." "Banks and financial institutions" have different parking requirements than "business offices" and are considered a different land use, so it may be confusing to include this land use in another one. In the future, this could end up eroding the original intent of keeping these land uses separate. Therefore, Staff does not recommend this option. Option #2: Amend the definition of "Business office" to include "Banks and financial institutions." Since "Business Offices" are already a conditional use within the PA District, the change in definition would allow for a bank to apply for a conditional use permit in the PA District under the guise of a "Business office." Since "Banks and financial institutions" are considered a separate land use, Staff does not feel this option is viable because it will combine two land uses that are intended to be separate. For example, "banks and financial institutions" have a greater parking requirement than "business offices." This change will also allow "banks and financial institutions", as part of "business offices" to be permitted in the PA District. Business offices are already a permitted use of basements in CC1, second floor of CC1, CC3, CSC, ABD and in the basement or garden level of LMU-1 and LMU-2. It is also a conditional use in Heavy Service, above the second floor in CC1 and the second floor and above in LMU-1 and LMU-2. Combining the two land uses could be confusing to applicants and unintentionally allow banks in places that were not intended. Therefore, Staff does not • recommend this option. • Option #3: Add "Banks and Financial Institutions" as a conditional use within the PA District. The pros of this optiori are that there would be no changes to definitions of other land uses. Also, since it would be a conditional use, this does not guarantee the allowance of banks in PA District, and could include certain conditions of approval. Staff feels that banks and financial institutions can be considered to meet the purpose of the PA District, as "Additional nonresidential uses are permitted as conditional uses which enhance fhe nature of Vail as a vacation community." Banks serve the vacation community as well as support the lodging components of the Town. However, Staff is concerned that it may not have been the intention of the zone district to have this as a stand alone land use, namely because "banks and financial institutions" are not included in the PA District, even when there is already a bank within this district (legally nonconforming First Bank on Vail Rd). The intent of the Zoning Regulations may have been to promote lodging rather than stand alone "banks and financial institutions." Additionally, the intent of this text amendment is not to allow banks on a permanent basis, but rather to help temporarily displaced businesses. Therefore, Staff does not recommend this option. Option #4: Define and add a new land use, "Temporary banks and financial institutions" as a conditional use within the PA District. Since the Zoning Regulations did not include "banks and financial institutions" in the first place, it is implied that the intent was to replace the First Bank on Vail Rd with another land use once the building was redeveloped. However, Staff seeks to help displaced businesses, including banks and financial institutions, that will likely return to their original buildings after construction. Staff feels that allowing banks on a short-term basis meets the purpose of the PA • District. This proposal would allow banks to move into the PA District on a temporary basis of up to three years with annual review by the PEC, which is similar language to "temporary business offices." This option is the least confusing and will not erode the definition of other land uses. Staff feels that this option also best meets the purpose of the text amendments, to accommodate banks on a temporary basis. Therefore, Staff recommends this option. IV. ROLES OF REVIEWING BODIES Order of Review: Text amendment applications are reviewed by the Planning and Environmental Commission, who then forward a recommendation to the Town Council. The Town Council will then review the text amendment application as an ordinance and must approve the ordinance on two readings. Planning and Environmental Commission: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for the review of a text amendment application, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, and forwarding of a recommendation to the Vail Town Council. Design Review Board: The Design Review Board has no review authority over a text amendment to the Vail Town Code. Town Council: - The Vail Town Council is responsible for final approval, approval with modifications, or • denial of a text amendment application, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code. The Vail Town Council has the authority to hear and decide appeals from any decision, • determination, or interpretation by the Planning and Environmental Commission and/or Design Review Board. The Vail Town Council may also call up a decision of the Planning and Environmental Commission and/or Design Review Board. Staff: The Town Staff facilitates the application review process and in this case is the applicant. Staff reviews the submitted application materials for completeness and general compliance with the appropriate requirements of the Town Code. Staff also provides the Planning and Environmental Commission with a memorandum containing a description and background of the application; an evaluation of the application concerning the criteria and findings outlined by the Vail Town Code; and a recommendation of approval, approval with modifications, or denial. V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Town of Vail Zonina Reoulations (Title 12. Vail Town Codel Chapter 12-1: Title, Purpose and Applicability 12-1-2: Purpose A. General: These regulations are enacted for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town, and fo promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that will • conserve and enhance its natural environment and ifs established character as a resort and residential community of high quality. Chapter 12-2: Definitions (in part): OFFICE, BUSINESS: An office for the conduct of general business and service activities, such as offices of real estate or insurance agents, brokers, secretarial or stenographic services, or offices for general business activities and transactions, where storage, sale, or display of merchandise on the premises occupies less than ten percent (10%) of the floor area. OFFICE, PROFESSIONAL: An office for the practice of a profession, such as offices of physicians, dentists, lawyers, architects, engineers, musicians, teachers, accountants, and others who through training are qualified to perform services of a professional nature, where storage, sale, or display of merchandise on the premises occupies less than ten percent (10%) of the floor area. OFFICE, TEMPORARY BUSINESS: An office for the conduct of general business and service activities for a duration of time not to exceed three (3) years, subject to an annual review by the planning and environmental commission to verify the applicant's compliance with the conditions of approval, to accommodate the displacement of an existing office in the town of Vail due to redevelopment for insurance agents, brokers, secretarial or stenographic services, or offices for general business activities and transactions, where storage, sale, or display of merchandise on the premises occupies less than ten • percent (10°!0) of the floor area. A temporary business office shall not include offices of real estate agents. Chapter 12-3: Administration and Enforcement 12-3-7: Amendment C. Criteria And Findings: 2. Prescribed Regulations Amendment: a. Factors, Enumerated: Before acting on an application for an amendment to the regulations prescribed in this title, the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested text amendment: (1) The extent to which the text amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the zoning regulations; and (2) The extent to which the text amendment would better implement and better achieve the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town; and (3) The extent fo which the text amendment demonstrates how conditions have substantially changed since the adoption of the subject regulation and how the existing regulation is no longer appropriate or is inapplicable; and (4) The extent to which the text amendment provides a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal development objectives; and • (5) Such other factors and criteria the Commission and/or Council deem applicable to the proposed text amendment. Article 7A: Public Accommodations (PA) District 12-7A-1: Purpose: The Public Accommodation District is intended to provide sites for lodges and residential accommodations for visitors, together with such public and semipublic facilities and limited professional offices, medical facilities, private recreation, commercial/retail and related visitor oriented uses as may appropriately be located within the same district and compatible with adjacent land uses. The Public Accommodation District is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities commensurate with lodge uses, and to maintain the desirable resort qualities of the district by establishing appropriate site development standards. Additional nonresidential uses are permitted as conditional uses which enhance the nature of Vail as a vacation community, and where permitted uses are intended to function compatibly with the high density lodging character of the district. 12-7A-2: Permitted Uses: The following uses shall be permitted in the PA District: Lodges, including accessory eating, drinking, or retail establishments located within the principal use and not occupying more than ten percent (10%) of the total gross residential floor area of the main structure or sTructures on the site; • additional accessory dining areas may be located on an outdoor deck, porch, or terrace. 12-7A-3: Conditional Uses: • The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the PA District, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title: Bed and breakfast, as further regulated by section 12-14-18 of this Title. Churches. Fractional fee club units as further regulated by subsection 12-16-7A8 of this Title. Hospitals, medical and dental clinics, and medical centers. Lodges, including accessory eating, drinking, or retail establishments located within the principal use and occupying between ten percent (10%) and fifteen percent (15%) of the total gross residential floor area of the main structure or structures on the site. Major arcade, so long as if does not have any exterior frontage on any public way, street, walkway, or mall area. Private clubs and civic, cultural and fraternal organizations. Professional and business offices. Public buildings, grounds and facilities. Public or commercial parking facilities or structures. Public or private schools. Public park and recreational facilities. Public transportation terminals. Public utility and public service uses. Ski lifts and tows. Theaters and convention facilities. • Type 111 employee housing units as provided in Chapter 13 of Phis Title. 12-7A-4: Accessory Uses: The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the PA District: Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in accordance with the provisions of section 12-14-12 of this title. Meeting rooms. Minor arcade. Swimming pools, tennis courts, patios, or other recreation facilities customarily incidental to permitted lodge uses. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof. VI. PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS Option #4 Additions are in bold, deletions are in st~ilESthrsug#. Chapter 12-2: Definitions: TEMPORARY BANKS AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS: An establishment open to the public where the principal business is the receipt, disbursement or exchange of funds and currencies, for a duration of time • not to exceed three (3) years, subject to an annual review by the Planning and Environmental Commission to verify the applicant's compliance with • the conditions of approval, to accommodate the displacement of an existing bank or financial institution in the Town of Vail due to redevelopment. 12-7A-3: Conditional Uses: The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the PA District, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title: Bed and breakfast, as further regulated by section 12-14-18 of this Title. Churches. Fractional fee club units as further regulated by subsection 12-16-7A8 of this Title. Hospitals, medical and dental clinics, and medical centers. Lodges, including accessory eating, drinking, or retail establishments located within the principal use and occupying between ten percent (10%) and fifteen percent (15%) of the total gross residential floor area of the main structure or structures on the site. Major arcade, so long as it does not have any exterior frontage on any public way, street, walkway, or mall area. Private clubs and civic, cultural and fraternal organizations. Professional and business offices. Public buildings, grounds and facilities. Public or commercial parking facilities or structures. Public or private schools. • Public park and recreational facilities. Public transportation terminals. Public utility and public service uses. Ski lifts and tows. Temporary banks and financial institutions. Theaters and convention facilities. Type 111 employee housing units as provided in Chapter 13 of this Title. VI1. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Staff believes that the text amendments in Option #4 are in accordance with the purpose and intent of Title 12, as they are all in line with the public interest and serve to improve the Code. The review criteria and factors for consideration for a request of a text amendment to Title 12 are established in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 12- 3, Vail Town Code. A. Consideration of Factors Reaardina the Text Amendment: 1. The extent to which the text amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations; and Staff believes that the proposed text amendments further the general and specific purposes of Title 12. The text amendments will promote the general welfare of the community by providing a temporary venue far displaced banking and financial institutions and other businesses. Option #4 best fits the purpose of • the PA District, as it enhances the lodging experience and provides for a small range of additional services to the tourist community. However, the temporary basis of this land use is not contemplated by the current Code. • 2. The extent to which the text amendment would better implement and better achieve the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town; and Staff believes that the proposed text amendments better implement and better achieve the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and are compatible with the development objectives of the Town. However, it is important to note that the temporary nature within the proposed text amendments are not contemplated by the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The extent to which the text amendment demonstrates how conditions have substantially changed since the adoption of the subject regulation and how the existing regulation is no longer appropriate or is inapplicable; and Staff believes that the proposed text amendments are adapting to the changing development scenario in the Town of Vail. Allowing for temporary banks and financial institutions to relocate to the PA~ District will enhance the District as well as provide a place for relocation during redevelopment. 4. The extent to which the text amendment provides a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal development objectives. Staff believes that the proposed text amendments will facilitate and provide a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations that are consistent with the Town of Vail master plans and development objectives. 5. Such other factors and criteria the Commission and/or Council deem applicable to the proposed text amendment. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before forwarding a recommendation of approval for a text amendment: 1. That the amendments are consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vai! Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town; and 2. That the amendments further the general and. specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations and the Development Review Handbook; and 3. That the amendments promote the health, safety, morals, and genera( welfare of the Town and promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that conserves and enhances its • natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. • VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval to the Town Council for option #4 of the proposed text amendments, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to Article 12-7A, Public Accommodations District, Vail Town Code, to allow for temporary banks and financial institutions as a conditional use within the Public Accommodations District, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Staff's recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented. Should the Planning & Environmental Commission choose to recommend approval of the proposed amendments in Option #4, Staff recommends that the following findings be incorporated into a motion: "1. That the amendments are consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town, and 2. That the amendments further the general and specific purpose of the Zoning Regulations; and 3. That the amendments promote the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the • Town and promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality." • • • 1655 PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF EAGLE SS. I, Steve Pope, da solemnly swear that 1 am a qualified representative of the Vail Daily. That the same Daily newspaper printed, in whole or in part and published in the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, and has a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been published continuously and uninterruptedly in said County of Eagle for a period of more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement and that said newspaper has Published the requested legal notice and advertisement as requested. The Vail Daily is an accepted legal advertising medium, only for jurisdictions operating under Colorado's Home Rule provision. That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in the regular and entire issue of every number of said daily newspaper for the period of 1 consecutive insertions; and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated July 07 A.D. 2006 and that the last publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated July 06 A.D. 2006. In witness whereof has here unto set my hand this 31st day July, 2006 _~ j Publish~y/C~neral~Gl /Editor Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado this 7sl5tof July, 2006. YP I ~~ ~. /~ ~~ 9 Pam oan Schultz Notary Public My Commission expires: November 1, 2007 S~NUIT~ ~yj~••.....••'~~• ~OFG~ ~,~, ~~. r~.-~ x,.,~~ Manner: BiI1 Gibson ACTION: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING July 10, 2006 PRQJECT ORIENTATION -Town Council Cham- bers -PUBLIC WELCOME 12:00 pm ', MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT site visits: 1. Wildfire Hazard Investigation Demonstratbn - 1807 Alpine Drive 12040 Basingdale Boulevard 2. Solis Residence -1740 Sierra Treil 3. Lot 1 -1452 Buffehr Creek Road 3. Edelweiss -103 Willow Place 4. Nugget Lane Partners- 4269 Nugget Lane Driver. George Public Hearing -Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm 10 minutes 1. A request for a worksession to dis- cuss proposed amendments to Chapters 12-21, Hazard Regulations, t4-7, Geologic/Ernironmental Hazards, and 14-10, Design Review Standards and Guidelines, Vail Town Code, to adopt Wildfire Regufatiorts and a Wildfire Hazard Map that will require mitigation of high and eMreme wildfire haz- ard zones in the 7ann of Vait, and setting forth de- tails in regard thereto. (PECO6-0029) Appligrn: Town of Vail Planner: Rachel Frieda ACTION: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 20 minutes 2. A request for a final review of a var- iance. from Section 12-6D-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, pursuarn to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to al- low for a new single family residence within the front and side setbacks, located at 1740 Si- erra TraillLot 22, Vail Village West Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PECO6- 0015) Applicant: Lois Solis, represented by Michael Suman Architect Planner: Matt Gannett ACTION: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE 10 minutes 3. A request for a final review of an amendgd final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Ex- emption Plat, Vail Town Code, to allow for the combination of Lot 1 and Tract A of the Clittside ~ 15 mirnAes ~ 5. A request for a final review of a var- iance, from Section 12-6C~, Setbacks. Vail Town Code, pursuant to chapter 12-17, Y~.:d,.,,~~, to al- low ~r a bedroom addition within itle front and side setbacks, located at 4269 Nugget Larre/Lot 3, Big- horn Estates Townhouses, a setting forth details in regard thereto. (PECO6.0044) Applicant: Nugget Lane Partners, LLC, repre- sented by Mortar Architects Planner: El:.,a:..:;1, Reed ACTION: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 15 minutes Town~Catrx;i pursuarnt Section~12-3-7Amend- mern, Vail Town Code, for text amendments to Ar- ticle 12-7A, Public Accommodations District, Vail Town Code, to allow for banks and financial irrstitu- ticns as a conditional use within the Public Accommodations District, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06.0047) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Rachel Frieda ACTION: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE Approval of June 26, 2006 minutes MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 8. Information Update As of July 24, 2006, Public Meetings will begin at 1:00. Lunch will not be served. Ad'ournment M~ION: SECOND: VOTE: The applications and information about the propos- als are available for public inspection during raga tar office hours at the Town of Vail Commun+'1y De- velopment Department, 75 Soutit Frontage Road. The public is invfted to attend the project orienta- tion and the site visits that precede the public hear- ing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please calY (970) 479-2138 for addi- tional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon re- quest with 24-hour notification. Please call (970) 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Departmern Published Jul 7, 2006, in the Vail Daily.(32511913~ • • 1638 • PROOF OF PUBLICATION PUBLIC NOTICE PROPI=_RT,r A Tr+ts rrew MA STATE OF COLORADO } ~ ~ NoTtce SS. } NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Ernironmerotal Commission of the Town of Vail will COUNTY OF EAGLE } hold a public hearing in accordance with section ,2.3-s, va;l Town coca, on,>ulr ,o, boos. at 2:00 pm in the Town of Vail Muniapal Buckling, mcon- j sideration of: I, Steve Po e, do solemnl swear that I am a ualified re resentative of the Vail Dail That the same p y Q p y• " req~ for a hnal review ~ an ~...`..~_~ noel plat, pursuant to Chapter ,3-12, Exemption Plat. Dail news a er rioted, in whole or in art and ublished in the Count of Ea le, State of Colorado, and Y P P P P P Y g Varl Town Code, to allow for the combination of Lot ,and Tract A of the CIAFSide Subdmsion iMo a sin- has ageneral circulation therein; that said newspaper has been published continuously and gle lot, located at,45213uffehr Creek RoakU Lot, and Tract A, Cloffside Subdivision, and setting forth uninterru tedl In said Count of Ea le fora eriod of more than fift -two consecutive weeks next rior P y~ y g P Y P details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0042) Applicant. Mike Voung to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement and that said newspaper has Planner: Warren Campbell Published the requested legal notice and advertisement as requested. A request for a final review of a variance, from sections ,2-sl-I-s, setbaake, and ,2-,a-, 7, set- The Vail Daily is an accepted legal advertising medium, only for jurisdictions operating under bads from Water course. Vad Town Code, pur- suant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for a Colorado's Home Rule rovision. p new front ermy and deck addition within the set- located at 103 Wilkow PlacelLOt 4, Block 6, backs , Vail Village FNng ,, and setting forth details in ne- P CO6.0043) That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in the regular and entire issue of every rd thereto. ( Edelweiss Condominium Association, represented by Lamy Dedcard Bill Gibson number of said daily newspaper for the period of 1 consecutive insertions; and that the first publication of Planner: A ,~,,,~, ,w a final review rn a variance, tram said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated June 23 A.D. 2006 and that the last publication of Section 12-6C•6, Setbacks, Val Town Code, pur- Sb~o~t '2,~,,,17ii11}1"a','~' pia kocated at 4269 Nugget Lane/Lot 3. Biglam backs said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated June 23 A.D. 2006. , E~,~s Townhouses, and setting forth derals in regaml thereto. (PEC06.OOA4) ,!f AppliceM: Nugget Lane Partners, LLC, repre- seMedtoy Momer A... : - ' p` Planner. Elisabeth Reed In witness whereof has here unto set my hand this 7th day July, 2006 A ~,. , ~,,,, ,_ , anmtion to the vu Town (',gnrci, pursuanrt to. ~1OA 12-3-7~llt0elxt- ' er/Cl(~ilxl~iana er/Editor g "~ `~'' T°w" Code' ~ rsxt em ` ' ~ ti~ 12-7A, Puble Acce , Taws Code, to allow for banks and finarldM icteyti+- Accom- Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado this tiorrs as a cortdtbonel~ ~~;°~~ (PECOS-oo47) 7th Of July, 2006. Applicant: Town ofvail plan"ar; Rachel Frieda The.arr::,.~::.•ns and information about the Propos- ailable for public inspection during office % als are av hours at the Town of Vail Community Dave • r ~ . 75 South Frontage Road. The pudic t y~y=~~/j~^' '~ ` ~ _. _ amela Joan Schultz ~ , Departmen is invited to attend prged oriE..w..-.. and the sne visits that precede the pubkc heanng in the Town DePartm~rt- Developrne"? A RY n, • r(J Notary Public . . Q. 8 . y of Vail Comrtnm Pleaaa "a" s7t}'7s-2,3e ror aa~°«,al inf~rma_ ti o ~ .... ... ~~ ~ • •• :~ 2007 Commission ex ires: November 1 ~'; M n. Sign fang iMerPfBLB~n. is available upon ro" "~n~ ~ - ~ ~ 11 s7a for 1 red , p y • 7 ~ , Te • P ^ELA J, • • f'V~, iMormation. 006 i • SCHIlLTZ . Published in the Vail Daily June 23. 2 5„650) ~ ; (32 ~ cf j,• '8 - ~OF c;G-